Cibrarp  of  Che  Cheolocjtcal  ^emmarjp 

PRINCETON  •  NEW  JERSEY 

PRESENTED  BY 

The  Estate  of 
Victor  H.  Lukens 

BT  304  . D68  1923  1 

Dougall ,  L.  1858-1923. 

The  Lord  of  thought 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/lordofthoughtstuOOdoug 


THE 


a 


\>v 


p 


LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


1 


A  STUDY  OF  THE  PROBLEMS  WHICH 
CONFRONTED  JESUS  CHRIST  AND 
THE  SOLUTION  HE  OFFERED 


BY 


LILY  DOUGALL 


Author  of  “ Pro  Christo  Et  Ecclesia etc.,  and 
joint  Author  of  “ The  Spirit”  etc . 

AND 

CYRIL  W.  EMMET,  M.A.,  B.D. 

!/ 

FELLOW  OF  UNIVERSITY  COLLEGE,  OXFORD,  AND 
EXAMINING  CHAPLAIN  TO  THE  BISHOP  OF  OXFORD 


Author  of  uThe  Eschatological  Question  in  the  Gospels  ” 
“ Conscience ,  Creeds  and  Critics”  etc.,  and 
joint  Author  of  “  The  Spirit etc. 


NEW  YORK 

GEORGE  H.  DORAN  COMPANY 


PRINTED  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA 


\ 

PREFACE 

Since  the  publication  of  Schweitzer’s  Quest  of  the 
Historical  Jesus ,  and  of  other  books  by  writers  who 
accept  his  interpretation,  emphasis  on  the  eschato¬ 
logical  interest  has  characterized  nearly  everything 
that  has  been  written  about  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
Christ.  It  is  now  widely  held  that  the  whole  thought 
of  Jesus  was  governed  by  the  belief  that  “  the  end  of 
the  world  ”  was  very  near,  or,  at  least,  that  this  belief 
was  a  confusing  element  in  his  outlook.  Our  aim  in 
the  present  study  is  to  show  that  Jesus  did  not  expect 
a  speedy  and  supernatural  destruction  of  the  world, 
but  that  he  did  expect  the  termination  of  an  order  of 
society  based  on  oppression — the  result  of  his  appeal 
to  the  Jews  to  fuse  their  fervid  patriotism  in  a  world¬ 
embracing  zeal  for  the  God  he  knew  to  be  Father 
of  all  mankind. 

In  proof  that  this  is  no  mere  reading  into  the  past 

of  modern  ideas  we  offer  some  account  of  the  Jewish 

literature  current  at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian 

era,  with  a  critical  examination  of  the  eschatological 

passages  in  the  first  three  Gospels,  as  together 

affording  evidence  of  the  strong  contrast  between 

v 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


the  teaching  of  Jesus  and  the  religious  thought 
common  in  his  day.  It  is  evident  that  this  view, 
if  established,  materially  affects  our  estimate  of  the 
originality  and  power  of  the  mind  of  Jesus,  and  gives 
us  a  conception  of  his  dominance  in  the  sphere  of 
thought  commensurate  with  the  historical  results  of 
his  impact  on  the  world  of  men. 

L.  D. 

C.  W.  E. 


Cutts  End,  Cumnox, 
September  1922, 


vt 


PUBLISHER’S  NOTE 


The  Author’s  thanks  are  due  to  the  Delegates  of 
the  Oxford  University  Press,  and  to  the  Publication 
Committee  of  the  S.  P.  C.  K.,  for  freely  placing  at 
their  disposal  the  recently  published  translations  of 
Jewish  apocryphal  writings. 

They  wish  also  to  record  their  great  obligation 
to  Miss  M.  S.  Earp  for  constant  advice  and  for  help 
in  recision  of  MS.  and  correction  of  proofs. 

It  is  especially  the  Author’s  desire  to  explain  that 
the  dual  authorship  of  this  volume  is  not  in  any  sense 
a  collaboration.  The  Introduction  and  Parts  I  and  II 
were  written  alone  by  Miss  Dougall  and  Part  III  by 
Mr.  Emmet. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.  INTRODUCTORY  .....  I 

PART  I 

The  World  into  which  Jesus  Came 

II.  JEWISH  FANTASY  .  .  .  .  .  1 3 

III.  THE  JEWISH  IDEA  OF  GOD  AS  JUDGE  .  24 

IV.  THE  PROBLEM  OF  GOD7S  LOVE  AND  CRUELTY  38 

V.  THE  JEWISH  IDEA  OF  MAN  ...  62 

VI.  THE  PROBLEM  OF  INADEQUATE  SALVATION  73 

VII.  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST  ....  83 

VIII.  THE  DIES  IRsE  AND  THE  GOSPEL  OF  THE 

KINGDOM  .....  93 

IX.  THE  SON  OF  MAN  AND  THE  OFFER  OF  ESCAPE  ICO 

PART  II 

The  Genius  of  Jesus 

X.  THE  SYNOPTIC  PORTRAIT  .  .  .  1 1 3 

XI.  NEW  IDEAS  OF  GOD  AND  MAN  .  .  1 26 

XII.  SALVATION  INTERNATIONAL  BECAUSE 

NATIONAL  .  .  •  •  .136 


IX 


THE 

LORD  OF 

THOUGHT 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

XIII. 

TEACHING 

CONCERNING 

CONSEQUENCE 

• 

iS4 

XIV. 

TEACHING 

CONCERNING 

PUNISHMENT 

• 

US 

XV. 

TEACHING 

ON  FORGIVENESS  . 

• 

191 

XVI. 

TEACHING 

ON  SIN  AND 

SALVATION  . 

• 

200 

XVII. 

SUMMARY 

•  • 

•  •  • 

• 

210 

PART  III 

Critical  Verification 


XVIII.  WHAT  DO  WE  KNOW  OF  THE  TEACHING  OF 
CHRIST  ?  . 


XIX.  ANGER  AND  PUNISHMENT 

XX.  TEACHING  ABOUT  FORGIVENESS 

XXI.  THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN 

XXII.  SALVATION  NATIONAL  AND  INTERNATIONAL 
XXIII.  THE  SON  OF  MAN  .... 


XXIV.  THE  FUNDAMENTAL  IDEAS  OF  APOCALYPTIC  : 

TRUTH  AND  ERROR  .... 


GENERAL  INDEX 


INDEX  OF  BIBLICAL,  APOCRYPHAL  AND  APOCA¬ 
LYPTIC  PASSAGES  •  •  .  . 


227 
236 
250 
256 
2  66 
275 


297 

3i3 


319 


X 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTORY 

Is  the  teaching  of  Jesus  difficult  to  interpret,  or  is 
it  so  simple  that  all  who  wish  may  understand  ?  The 
answer  to  both  these  questions  is  in  the  affirmative. 

The  soul  that  in  its  devotional  moments  seeks  spiritual 
help  and  wisdom  in  the  recorded  words  of  Jesus  will 
find  what  it  seeks.  The  devotional  reading  of  the 
Gospels  has  always  provided  what  satisfies  and  stimu¬ 
lates  those  who  are  hungry  for  the  best  that  life  can 
give.  But  the  human  soul  has  other  legitimate  moods 
than  that  of  unquestioning  devotion.  The  time  in  Modern 
which  we  live  is,  like  that  of  the  Renaissance,  a  time  Jiiscoveries 

when  fresh  knowledge  from  man*y  sides  is  impinging  show  how 
.  .  .  .  it  t  ,  original  was 

rudely  upon  the  religious  life,  in  particular,  new  the  thought 

discoveries  of  the  religious  literature  of  the  age  of of  Jesus- 

Jesus  provide  data  of  immense  importance  to  all  who 

are  trying  to  understand  what  he  was  and  stood  for, 

but  in  so  doing  make  it  far  less  easy  than  of  old  to  be 

sure  that  we  have  done  so  fairly. 

The  genius  of  Jesus,  his  originality,  his  contribution 
to  the  world’s  wisdom,  can  only  be  understood  if 
considered  in  relation  to  Jewish  beliefs  current  in  his 
day  about  the  End  of  the  World,  the  Last  Judgment, 
final  rewards  and  punishments,  and  the  Reign  of  God  or 

A 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


the  Heavenly  Kingdom — beliefs  summed  up  under  the 
term  Eschatology.1  In  addition  it  must  be  seen  in 
relation  to  certain  non- Jewish  writings,  now  more  care¬ 
fully  examined,  which  give  us  a  clearer  idea  of  the  then 
prevailing  Pagan  notion  of  personal  salvation.  But  the 
more  all  these  are  studied  the  more  clearly,  by  contrast, 
does  the  teaching  of  Jesus  stand  out  as  distinctive. 

In  the  light  of  the  new  and  more  accurate  knowledge, 
some  modern  theologians  have  discovered  in  the  teach¬ 
ing  of  Jesus  what  amounts  to  inconsistency  of  thought. 
These  interpreters  see  that  Jewish  eschatology  looked 
forward  to  the  destruction  of  the  world,  not  its  regen¬ 
eration,  which  implied  a  conception  of  God  as  a  God 
not  so  much  of  love  as  of  wrath,  and  they  suppose  that 
Jesus  both  taught  a  religion  of  love  and  also  accepted 
the  current  Jewish  eschatology  that  was  really  incon¬ 
sistent  with  it.2  Others,  again,  seek  to  give  con¬ 
sistency  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus  by  forcing  upon  all 
his  sayings  and  parables  an  interpretation  in  har¬ 
mony  with  the  more  fanatical  Judaism  of  his  time, 
thus  depriving  his  message  of  any  originality.3 
Only  a  This  book  seeks  to  maintain  that  Jesus  had  a  philo- 

second-rate  gop^y  0f  life>  jn  which  all  his  ideas  found  a  place. 

confidently  In  other  words,  his  ideas  formed  one  consistent  scheme 
inconsistent  of  thought.  Philosophy,  as  distinguished  from  the 
beliefs.  pursuit  of  philosophy  or  the  historical  knowledge 
of  past  philosophies,  is  the  systematization  of  all  that 


1  We  have  Jewish  eschatology  fully  and  picturesquely  given  to  us  in 
writings  called  “Apocalypses.”  The  word  means  an  “  unveiling  ”  or 
“  disclosure.”  The  books  record  visions  supposed  to  disclose  the  events 
connected  with  the  end  of  the  world. 

2  Cf.  e.g.  Baron  von  Hiigel,  Essays  in  the  Philosophy  of  Religion,  pp. 
124-6;  Mr  H.  G.  Wood  in  Peake's  Commentary,  p.  661  a. 

3  See  Schweitzer,  Tyrrell,  and  others.  Cf.  also  C.  W.  Emmet,  Chaps, 
xxi.,  xxii.,  and  xxiii. 


2 


INTRODUCTORY 


is  known  or  believed.  Philosophy  is  to  knowledge  what, 
according  to  Plato,  justice  is  to  all  the  virtues — the 
organized  unity  of  the  whole.  In  this  sense,  like  every 
great  teacher  who  deals  with  the  relation  of  what  is  to 
what  ought  to  be,  Jesus  must  have  exercised  the  philo¬ 
sophic  mind,  must  have  achieved  a  philosophy  of  life. 

In  sympathy  with  the  many  who  desire  to  make 
such  research  without  orthodox  presuppositions,  it  is 
as  the  words  of  a  human  thinker  that  we  would  examine 
the  teaching  of  Jesus.1  And  this  need  not  distress  the 
most  orthodox  of  readers  for,  while  this  method  does 
not  allow  any  question-begging  assertion,  it  involves 
no  contradiction  of  traditional  doctrine.  A  Catholic 
thinker  says,  “  A  real  Incarnation  of  God  in 
man  can  only  mean  Incarnation  in  some  particular 
human  nature.  Man  in  general  is  only  an  idea,  it 
is  not  a  fact,  a  reality.  .  .  .  The  Incarnation  could 
not  be  made  other  than  the  entering  into,  and  posses¬ 
sion  of,  a  human  mind  and  will  endowed  with  special 
racial  dispositions  and  particular  racial  categories 
of  thought.  .  .  .  Otherwise  the  Revealer  would  begin 
His  career  by  being  simply  unintelligible  to  His  first 
hearers,  and  even,  in  the  long  run,  to  the  large  majority 
of  mankind;  and  He  would,  in  Himself,  not  be  normally, 
characteristically,  man.”  2 

I  start  with  the  presumption  that  in  Jesus  human 

intellect  attained  high  development.  He  must  there-  Genius  an 
~  i  c  1*1  i  it  element  in 

fore  have  formed  a  judgment  on  the  popular  reli-  human 

gious  books  of  his  time,  as  upon  the  law  and  prophets,  Perfection* 

and  upon  the  reports  of  other  religions  which  would 

1  In  harmony  with  this  treatment  of  our  problem  we  discard  the 
convention  which  puts  capital  letters  to  pronouns  referring  to  Jesus. 

8  Essays  in  the  Philosophy  of  Religion,  Baron  von  Hiigel,  p.  125. 

3 


TOE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Genius 
the  most 
important 
factor  in 
human 
develop¬ 
ment. 


have  entered  Palestine ;  and  that  judgment  must 
have  been  unified  with  all  else  that  he  believed.  The 
power  thus  to  unify  ideas  divides  the  philosophic 
from  the  unphilosophic  mind,  the  higher  grades  of 
human  intelligence  from  the  lower.  As,  then,  it 
is  only  the  second-rate  mind  that  is  able  to  hold  some 
beliefs  shut  off  from  the  rest,  or  to  be  a  confident 
teacher  of  obvious  inconsistencies,  we  must  be  slow 
to  attribute  such  weakness  to  Jesus. 

The  phenomenon  of  human  genius  has  played  so 
large  a  part  in  the  elevation  of  the  race  that  it  is 
strange  that  its  importance  has  been  so  little  noticed, 
so  little  lauded,  by  the  Christian  Church.  Two 
causes  have  contributed  to  this.  One  is  the  tendency 
of  mankind  at  large  to  insist  upon  the  infallibility 
of  religious  oracles  by  seeking  to  minimize  the  part 
of  the  human  intellect  in  any  process  of  illumination. 
To  this  universal  tendency  of  mankind  was  added  the 
direction  given  to  Christian  piety  in  that  long,  chaotic 
period  of  low  education  and  low  civilization  called 
“  the  dark  ages.”  In  such  a  period  the  light  of  truth 
came  chiefly  from  the  past.  The  ecclesiastical  shep¬ 
herds,  with  their  uneducated  flocks,  naturally  feared 
the  originality  and  indocility  which  usually  accompany 
exceptional  intellectual  power.  Private  judgment  upon 
books  or  formulae  when  the  private  person  could  not 
understand  them  would  have  been  particularly  futile 
and  dangerous.  When  the  Church  emerged  into  a 
better  age  and  general  education  revived,  the  habit  was 
clearly  fixed  of  belittling  the  moral  value  of  intelligence 
as  compared  with  that  of  literal  obedience  ;  and  this, 
unfortunately,  is  still  the  orthodox  tendency. 

Yet  new  ideas  come  to  us  only  through  the  medium 

4 


INTRODUCTORY 


of  intellect,  and  it  is  only  by  new  ideas  that  the  world 
changes  from  one  phase  of  social  or  institutional  life 
to  another.  It  has  been  well  said  that  discovery  is  the 
human  side  of  what  on  God’s  side  is  revelation.  Believ¬ 
ing  in  God,  we  are  obliged  to  believe  that  He  imparts  His 
truth  through  human  minds,  for  the  whole  history  of 
mankind  exemplifies  this.  To  accept  this  testimony  of  The 
history  is  not,  as  some  unthinking  people  are  apt  to  cry,  ne^ideas0* 
to  reject  revelation  ;  it  is  simply  to  recognize  that  God’s 
ways  in  revelation  are  harmonious  with  His  other  pro¬ 
cesses  of  creation.  Nor  is  it  to  deny  the  action  of  divine 
super-wisdom  and  goodness ;  it  is  rather  to  affirm 
universally  the  great  principle  on  which  Christianity 
is  founded,  that  the  mind  of  God,  which  is  partially 
manifest  in  nature,  can  only  be  perfectly  manifested  to 
man  in  human  nature.  Nor  does  the  contention  that 
Jesus  was  a  great  thinker  involve  any  denial  of  his 
divinity  :  rather  it  insists  that  intellectual  power  is  an 
element  in  even  human  perfection. 

As  the  history  of  all  human  development,  from  totem 
tribes  to  modern  societies,  is  the  history  of  individual 
men  great  enough  to  lead  their  fellows,  and  as  the 
force  by  which  these  leaders  have  been  moved  and  have 
been  able  to  move  others  has  always  been  the  new 
idea,  let  us  ask  what  kind  of  idea  has  been  most  potent  in 
the  world.  We  find  that  what  has  always  been  most 
essential,  most  formative,  to  the  character  of  any  group 
or  society,  has  been  its  idea  of  God.  It  is  true  to 
say  that  as  men  are,  so  they  conceive  God  to  be  ;  but 
it  is  more  true  to  say  that  as  they  conceive  God,  so  they 
grow  to  be.  For  the  idea  of  God,  remaining  for  long 
periods  little  changed,  is  a  steady  force  shaping  the 
minds  of  generations,  not  by  means  of  voluntary  piety 

5 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


The 

supreme 
importance 
of  religious 
genius. 


but  through  the  social  imagination.  The  character  of 
an  acknowledged  and  unseen  power,  whether  conceived 
as  fetish  or  warrior  or  judge  or  as  vast  mechanical  force, 
is  always  in  the  background  of  the  imagination  of  the 
community,  and  thus  becomes  the  foundation  of  its 
philosophy  of  life.  As  the  image  of  power,  it  shapes 
in  man’s  subconscious  mind  both  ideal  and  endeavour. 
Thus,  a  new  idea  of  God  involves  a  new  idea  of  man. 
This  is  incontestable,  and  it  follows  that  the  leader 
from  whom  springs  a  new  and  truer  idea  of  God  has,  in 
the  long  run,  much  more  power  than  those  leaders 
whose  genius  is  occupied  with  what  is  less  fundamental. 
For  the  new  idea  of  God  involves  new  laws,  new 
political  grouping  and  new  art. 

As  the  idea  of  God,  even  when  mainly  some  mon¬ 
strous  figment  of  man’s  fancy,  has  such  power,  it  is 
plain  that  the  greatest  discovery  in  any  place  or  epoch 
would  be  a  better  God.  Further,  if,  as  we  believe, 
there  is  a  Supreme  Being  whose  influence  environs  all 
human  life,  the  greatest  of  all  discoveries  would  be 
knowledge  of  His  true  character.  Such  a  discovery 
would  involve  a  knowledge  of  man’s  true  nature,  and 
when  accepted  would  be  the  remaking  of  man.  I 
believe  that  such  a  discovery  was  made  by  the  historic 
Jesus,  and  by  him  made  for  the  first  time,  although 
many  partial  discoveries  of  God  had  been  made 
earlier. 

The  peculiar  genius  which  belongs  to  great  moral  or 
religious  teachers  is  always  coupled  with  a  life  lived 
in  the  power  of  the  teaching.  It  could  not  be  other¬ 
wise.  Morality  or  religion  can  only  be  fully  taught  by 
being  exemplified  in  life  ;  and  no  teacher  could  be 
great  who  was  not  so  possessed  with  his  message  as 

6 


INTRODUCTORY 


to  live  in  its  power.  If  Socrates  could  have  been  sus¬ 
pected  of  dishonesty,  or  Plato  have  been  seen  dis¬ 
tracted  with  the  cares  of  life,  or  Paul  have  been  melan¬ 
choly  or  slothful,  what  a  difference  it  would  have  made  ! 

The  weakness  would  have  crept  into  the  teaching ; 
the  world  would  not  have  listened  so  well.  Life  is 
more  than  intellect ;  a  great  life  is  very  much  more 
than  the  great  intellect  which  is  one  of  its  powers.  But 
the  two  cannot  be  separated  ;  and  to  acknowledge  that 
Jesus  lived  and  died  so  greatly  as  to  fascinate  the  heart 
of  the  world  is  also  to  affirm  that  he  must  have  thought 
greatly.  We  should  expect,  then,  that  he  would  make 

a  discoverv  about  God.  It  is  the  thesis  of  this  book 
* 

that  he  made  an  original  discovery,  the  meaning  and 
supreme  importance  of  which  have  not  even  yet  been 
fully  recognized. 

As  a  preliminary  to  any  estimate  of  the  Gospel 
teaching,  we  need  to  consider  how  we  shall  deal  with 
any  inconsistencies  contained  in  the  record.  When 
we  find,  in  the  record  of  any  great  teacher,  incon¬ 
sistency  and  mistaken  forecast,  is  it  not  the  most 
reverent  course  to  subject  the  record  to  the  strictest 
criticism,  on  the  assumption  that  confusion  is  more 
likely  to  belong  to  tradition  or  to  the  mind  of  the 
writer  than  to  the  master  mind  portrayed  ?  In  the  The  Gospels 
history  of  any  one  of  the  canonized  Christian  saints,  tiie^dassk 

when  sayings  and  acts  are  attributed  to  him  or  her  a§e  bnef 
J  .  moral 

which  to  us  appear  inconsistent  and  unworthy,  our  biographies, 
first  proceeding  is  to  suspect  the  accuracy  of  the 
narrator.  If  we  discover  independent  reasons  for 
thinking  such  things  as  we  deprecate  may  have  crept 
into  the  record  as  unwitting  inaccuracies,  we  proceed,  if 
we  are  scientific  and  honest,  to  sift  that  record  care- 

7 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


fully  in  the  light  of  all  relevant  facts,  on  the  hypothesis 
that  the  inspiration  of  the  saint  for  goodness  and  wis¬ 
dom  was  greater  than  the  inspiration  for  accuracy 
enjoyed  by  his  disciples.  This  is  not  true  only  of 
saints  :  it  is  true  of  all  the  great  men  of  the  past. 
The  more  we  study  the  lives  that  have  been  written 
of  them  and  the  allusions  to  them  in  other  histories, 
the  more  do  their  characters,  shaped  with  fundamental 
consistency  by  certain  strong,  characteristic  ideas, 
stand  out  clearly  from  a  cloudy  background  of  minor 
inaccuracies  and  mistaken  interpretations. 

Rut,  it  may  be  said,  if  the  Gospels  are  inaccurate 
history,  why  believe  their  testimony  ?  This  question 
is  not  rational ;  it  arises  as  a  fretful  reaction  from  the 
long  tradition  of  verbal  inspiration.  The  Gospels, 
as  we  have  them,  were  written  in  the  Golden  Age  of 
ancient  biography.  Plutarch’s  Lives ,  the  Agricola  of 
Tacitus,  are  contemporary  instances  of  brief  bio¬ 
graphies  written  with  a  moral  purpose.  The  applica¬ 
tion  of  the  principle  of  criticism  does  not  in  any  way 
discount  the  general  truth  of  these  records.  Plutarch’s 
stories  are  in  general  so  true  to  fact,  so  entirely  in 
harmony  with  the  known  results  of  each  recorded  life 
on  the  course  of  the  world,  so  psychologically  convinc¬ 
ing,  that  his  work  is  one  of  the  great  mines  in  which 
historians  humbly  and  diligently  dig.  Yet  every 
edition  of  his  book  is  annotated  to  point  out  this  and 
The  sub-  that  detail  as  untrue  or  doubtful.  Moreover,  there  are 

s  tici.1 

truth  of  the  many  statements  to  which  no  such  critical  note  is 

Synoptic  appended  which  yet  no  one  believes — tales  of  meticu- 
narrative.  r  r  J 

lously  fulfilled  prophecies,  miraculous  portents  or 
mythical  ancestors.  Nor  does  the  moral  purpose  of 
these  records  vitiate  their  truth.  The  facts  they  con- 

8 


INTRODUCTORY 


tain  still  influence  and  shape  men’s  characters — so 
moral  they  are,  so  true,  and  yet  inaccurate. 

Now  the  Gospels  are  by  far  the  most  beautiful  and 
powerful  specimens  of  the  kind  of  biography  char¬ 
acteristic  of  the  age.  We  thus  see  that  the  life  of  Jesus 
comes  to  us  through  a  natural  channel  which  we  may 
yet  believe  to  be  a  channel  of  divine  inspiration  for  us. 

God’s  way  with  life,  from  the  amoeba  to  man,  has  never 

been  to  fulfil  desire  but  to  tempt  to  effort.  From  the  The  divine 

dawn  of  history  God’s  way  with  man  has  not  been  to  Minddoes 

instruct  but  to  tempt  to  discovery.  If,  then,  the  most  not  instruct 
r  ...  .  r  T  but  tempts 

important  of  all  truths  is  given  us  m  the  story  of  Jesus,  man  to 

we  should  not  expect  to  find  that  truth  spread  out  as  dlscovery- 

an  advertisement,  but  rather  hidden  as  a  treasure. 

If  we  think  of  God’s  spirit  as  ever  creating  us,  we  should 

expect  to  have  to  seek  below  the  surface  for  what  is 

most  worth  having. 

If  then,  as  appears,  a  fuller  knowledge  of  the  period 
in  which  Jesus  lived  has  made  it  quite  evident  that 
there  is  inconsistency  in  the  teaching  attributed  to 
him,  we  may  well  agree,  considering  the  circumstances 
in  which  the  Gospels  were  compiled,  that  it  is  more 
becoming  for  us,  in  the  first  instance,  to  suspect  the 
records  of  inaccuracy  than  to  assume  that  the  incon¬ 
sistency  lay  with  Jesus.  The  course  of  investigation 
suggested  in  this  book  is  based  upon  the  belief  that  the 
great  Subject  of  these  biographies  is  more  likely  to  have 
possessed  a  consistent  philosophy  of  life  than  his 
historians  to  have  possessed  an  infallible  tradition  of  his 
words  and  works,  that  he  was  more  likely  to  have  made 
a  new  discovery  of  God  than  his  recording  disciples 
to  have  understood  the  full  significance  of  that  dis¬ 
covery. 


9 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Part  I. 

World 

Problems. 


Part  II. 
Their 
solution  in 
thought. 


Part  III. 
Critical 
corrobora¬ 
tion. 


The  first  part  of  this  book  is  a  brief  review  of  the 
Jewish  books  which  reflect  the  beliefs  of  the  generation 
in  which  Jesus  lived  ;  for  in  order  to  know  how  far 
Jesus  was  original  we  must  make  what  survey  we  can  of 
the  religious  thought  that  he  found  to  hand  in  his 
environment. 

In  the  second  part  I  attempt  a  brief  survey  of  the 
teaching  as  we  have  it  in  the  Synoptic  1  Gospels,  and 
suggest  a  critical  hypothesis  which,  if  it  can  be  verified, 
would  free  the  energies  of  Christian  society  from 
certain  old  and  hampering  traditions,  and  give  new 
vividness  to  the  stimulating  vision  of  an  international 
salvation. 

The  third  part  of  the  book,  contributed  by  Mr 
Emmet,  shows  how  far  sober  critical  examination  of  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  in  relation  to  the  Apocalyptic  litera¬ 
ture  justifies  our  hypothesis,  and  how  far  the  present 
results  of  such  examination  point  to  its  complete 
justification. 


1  The  first  three  Gospels  are  called  Synoptic  because  the  main  facts 
of  the  narrative  are  common  to  all  three.  Our  inquiry  has  been 
confined  to  these,  although  our  position  would  have  been  greatly 
strengthened  had  we  permitted  ourselves  further  to  substantiate  it  by 
reference  to  the  Fourth  Gospel. 


TO 


PART  I 

THE  WORLD  INTO  WHICH  JESUS  CAME 


CHAPTER  II 


JEWISH  FANTASY 

The  prophecies  of  God’s  speedy  judgment  of  the 
world,  embedded  in  the  Gospels,  form  an  outstanding 
difficulty.  Let  us  seek  first  their  source,  for,  whether  or 
not  adopted  by  him,  they  are  not  original  to  Jesus. 

The  extinction  of  the  old  Jewish  kingdom,  the  Exile, 
and  the  repatriation  of  only  those  Jews  who  were  most 
intensely  religious  and  patriotic,  had  resulted  in  a  com¬ 
munity  which  was  more  like  our  notion  of  a  church 
than  of  a  nation.  Their  statecraft  was  a  religion. 
They  bore  to  the  older  Jewish  state  that  had  passed 
away  much  the  same  relation  as  the  Roman  Catholic 
enthusiasts  of  the  Counter-Reformation  bore  to  the 
Roman  Church  as  it  existed  before  the  Reformation. 
If  we  can  imagine  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  reduced 
to  a  few  thousands  of  its  most  religious  adherents,  keep¬ 
ing  alive  a  little  “  Holy  Roman  Empire  ”  of  their  own 
in  some  border  state,  their  land  constantly  trampled 
by  the  armies  of  neighbouring  powers,  convinced, 
not  only  of  the  right  of  their  community  to  rule 
humanity,  but  that  humanity  could  only  be  saved  by 
submission  to  such  rule,  we  can  picture  Judea  after  the 
Exile.  Further,  if  we  can  imagine  the  members  of  this 
nucleus  of  a  Holy  Roman  Empire  at  last  completely 
convinced  that  they  could  never  gain  the  audience 


Judea 
after  the 
Babylonian 
exile. 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Persecu¬ 
tion  of 
Antiochus 
Epiphanes, 
167  B.C. 


Origin  of 
apocalyptic 
ideas, 
judgment, 
hell,  etc. 


of  the  nations  by  natural  means  and  expecting  a 
supernatural  triumph,  we  may  form  for  ourselves 
some  picture  of  the  community  at  Jerusalem  dur¬ 
ing  the  period  when  Antiochus  Epiphanes  seized 
both  the  city  and  Temple,  set  up  the  worship  of  Zeus 
and  burned  the  Books  of  the  Law,  and  finally  tortured 
and  slew  those  who  publicly  upheld  the  sacred  law. 
The  average  religious  mind,  under  such  circumstances, 
could  only  find  refuge  from  insanity  in  fantasy. 

Psychology  recognizes  that  the  human  mind,  when 
faced  with  distress  too  hard  to  bear,  creates  compensa¬ 
tion  for  itself  in  day-dreams  and  fantasies  picturing  con¬ 
ditions  exactly  opposite  to  those  of  actual  experience. 
This  mental  tendency  is  entirely  consonant  with 
sanity  :  it  is  the  way  in  which  nature  roughly  pre¬ 
serves  sanity  in  the  ordinary  mind.  This  everyday 
fact  may  be  illustrated,  in  a  small  way,  from  the 
experience  of  a  well-known  person  in  Victorian  society 
who,  morbidly  self-conscious  and  shy,  was  able  to  over¬ 
come  the  distress  of  joining  in  public  functions  by 
fancying  himself  to  be  floating  through  interstellar 
spaces.  The  illustration,  odd  as  it  is,  will  recall  to 
most  of  us  similar  devices  of  our  own  imaginations 
which  psychologists  now  call  “  the  compensations  of 
fantasy.”  The  mental  law  thus  seen  in  trivial  things 
works  also  in  great.  The  form  of  much  of  the  poetry 
of  the  world  has  this  for  explanation.  Bunyan,  im¬ 
mured  in  a  cell,  wrote  of  the  inner  life  of  a  soul  as  a 
far  journey  in  open  country  and  full  of  adventure  ; 
Milton,  in  his  later  work,  enthrones  in  heaven  the 
Puritanism  dethroned  on  earth  ;  Dante  glories  in  the 
fixed  order  and  justice  of  the  after-life  while  political 
chaos  and  injustice  romp  together  over  his  beloved 


JEWISH  FANTASY 

Italy.  The  popularity  of  any  poetry  or  fiction  is 
mainly  due  to  the  adoption  by  the  many  of  compen¬ 
sating  fantasies  created  for  them  by  more  gifted  minds. 

Into  the  moulds  of  such  written  fantasy  a  poet  or 
dramatist  naturally  pours  such  of  his  own  favourite 
convictions  as  he  desires  should  prevail.  There  may  be 
great  truth  in  his  convictions  and,  if  so,  his  imaginative 
work  will  have  religious  and  moral  value  as  well  as 
its  chief  and  proper  value  of  relieving  overcharged 
hearts  by  offering  channels  of  agreeable  relaxation. 

Jewish  fantasy,  in  the  dire  crisis  of  the  national 
religious  life  when  the  first  apocalypses  were  written, 
took  the  form  of  visions  of  supernatural  and  immortal 
triumph — a  triumph  which  included  cruel  revenge  upon 
their  oppressors  and  apostate  brethren.  A  glance  at 
their  history  will  make  this  appear  natural. 

During  their  exile  in  Babylon  the  Jews  learned  thor-  The  legal 
oughly  the  superiority  of  their  own  ethical  and  theo-  °xait°k 
logical  conceptions  over  those  of  the  heatnen.  The  innocence 

o  x  rcttlicr  tu2.n 

superiority  was  real,  but  it  was  expressed  in  scripture  goodness, 
which  contained  both  superior  and  inferior  matter. 

Their  religion  was  enshrined  in  the  final  revision  and 
canonization  of  a  written  law.  Two  things  are  notice¬ 
able  about  the  idea  of  juridical  law  : 

(, a )  It  has  penalties,  but  no  rewards.  Though  the 
idea  of  bestowing  desert  implies  reward  as  well  as 
punishment,  legal  systems  are  penal  only.  This  makes 
the  idea  of  virtue  negative,  for  to  do  nothing  worthy 
of  punishment  becomes  virtue.  Thus  virtues  tend  to  be 
regarded  as  unimportant  as  compared  with  iniquities, 
which  are  positive  and  cannot  be  overlooked.  An 
unwholesome  stress  is  laid  upon  wickedness. 

( b )  All  legal  systems  have  also  a  forward  look,  for  the 

IS 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


and  implies 
a  future 
paradise. 


The  world¬ 
regenerat¬ 
ing  genius 
of  the 
prophets. 


ideal  they  contemplate  is  perfect  obedience  to  them. 
They  never  are  perfectly  obeyed,  but  every  infraction 
of  the  law  has  associated  with  it  the  idea  that  it  ought 
not  to  be,  while  penalties  are  nearly  ahvays  deterrent 
in  aim  as  well  as  retributory.  Thus  every  penal  code 
points  forward  to  its  own  negation,  as  theoretically  it 
exists  only  in  order  to  produce  a  condition  in  which 
it  will  not  be  needed — a  time  when  the  will  of  the  law¬ 
giver  shall  be  done  universally.  Thus  from  the  deifica¬ 
tion  of  divine  power  as  Law  arose  both  an  identification 
of  innocence  with  virtue — producing  an  undue  em¬ 
phasis  upon  human  iniquity,  and  the  magnificent  hope 
of  the  future  Golden  Age  of  God.  These  two  ideas 
were  implicit  in  the  thought  of  the  nation  before 
it  suffered  the  religious  persecution  that  awoke  an 
insatiable  thirst  for  revenge. 

Up  to  the  time  when  the  Book  of  Daniel  was  written, 
except  for  a  few  apocalyptic  fragments,  both  the  law 
and  the  prophets  spoke  to  the  Jews  of  that  future  good 
time  in  which  the  law  would  be  obeyed  $s  coming  in 
the  natural  process  of  human  history.  God  in  the  past 
had  performed  for  them  many  and  marvellous  deliver¬ 
ances,  but  these  had  always  been  worked  on  earth, 
and  through  natural  agents — kings,  even  the  worst 
heathen  kings,  law-givers,  generals,  locusts  and  other 
plagues  and  pestilences  of  nature.  The  sun  had  stood 
still  in  Ajalon  ;  the  waters  of  Jordan  had  parted  to 
let  the  tribes  pass  on  ;  but  these  things  had  been  but 
as  adjuncts  to  common  warfare.  It  was  in  the  natural 
course  of  history  (as  history  was  then  interpreted)  that 
the  prophets  had  taught  them  to  expect  the  triumph 
of  the  Jewish  religion  and  of  God. 

When  these  high  hopes  born  of  the  prophetic  tradi- 

16 


JEWISH  FANTASY 

tion  were  turned  to  despair  ;  when  the  confines  of  the 
known  world  had  become  greatly  enlarged,  and  the 
power  and  wealth  of  Western  nations  recognized ; 
when  the  more  educated  Jews  at  last  perceived  that  the 
geographical  position  of  Palestine  made  it  impossible 
for  them  to  be  left  in  peaceful  independence,  and  that 
their  feebleness  made  it  impossible  for  them  to  conquer 
their  enemies  by  natural  means,  the  devout  among  them 
naturally  turned  to  the  belief  that  the  hope  of  a 
universal  reign  of  God,  implicit  in  the  law,  would  be 
realized  by  supernatural  means.  But  this  national 
faith  was  not  quite  adequate  to  give  to  all  of  them 
serenity  in  adverse  circumstances  :  the  mere  indefinite 
belief  that  God  would  some  time  vindicate  His  truth, 
in  this  world  or  another,  was  not  sensational  enough  to 
give  relief  to  their  not  only  disappointed  but  naturally 
enraged  hearts.  Many  of  them — perhaps  the  greater 
number — could  not  rise  to  the  height  set  forth  in  The  world- 
the  Book  of  Job ,  that  of  repose  in  spiritual  communion 
with  God,  leaving  the  problem  of  evil  with  Him.  Far  lesser  seers 
less  could  they  find  satisfaction  in  the  thought  of  God’s 
care  for  the  heathen  as  well  as  for  themselves  as  set 
forth  in  the  Book  of  Jonah ,  or  accept,  with  all  its 
implications,  the  doctrine  of  vicarious  national  suffering 
taught  by  the  Second  Isaiah.  Many  who  nobly 
endured  the  ruthless  persecution  of  Antiochus  Epip- 
hanes  still  sought  compensation  for  present  suffering 
in  visions  of  speedy  supernatural  triumph  in  which 
vengeance  upon  their  enemies  bore  the  largest  part. 

Both  the  law  and  the  prophets,  when  written  and 
re-edited  and  written  again,  contained  passages  of 
primitive  origin  in  which  the  desired  doctrine  of  God  as 
a  vindictive  God  found  large  corroboration.  Thus  the 

1 7 


B 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


When 

scripture  is 

sacrosanct 

primitive 

errors  are 

esteemed 

divine. 


apocalyptic  seers  took  over  and  stereotyped  from  a 
cruder  and  coarser  past  a  crude  and  cruel  conception  of 
God. 

The  sacred  scripture  taught  God’s  love,  but  its 
history  of  the  past  was  self-contradictory ;  the  laws 
laid  down  in  it  were  not  consistent  with  each  other  ; 
the  prophets  contained  inconsistent  statements. 
Within  it  there  were  the  noblest  visions  of  goodness 
and  mercy,  together  with  savage  conceptions  of 
deified  cruelty.  But  no  doubt  was  entertained  of 
the  veracity  of  every  verbal  statement.  Whatever 
was  believed  had  been  revealed  ;  whatever  had  got 
into  the  traditional  revelation  must  be  believed.1 

With  regard  to  this,  Professor  Burkitt,  in  Jewish 
and  Christian  Apocalypses ,  says  (pp.  5,  14) : 

“  The  returned  exiles  (of  the  age  of  Ezra)  aspired  to  play  no 
great  political  part.  .  .  .  But,  insignificant  as  they  might  be 
in  numbers  and  immediate  influence,  they  were  now  a  peculiar 
people.  .  .  .  They  were  the  People  :  the  rest  of  the  world  were 
Gentiles.  They  now  possessed  the  Law  of  God  in  black  and 
white,  a  law  that  had  been  given  to  them  to  keep  at  all  costs.  .  .  . 
The  Word  of  God  had  been  already  given  to  them,  and  so  the 
race  of  the  Prophets  came  to  an  end  and  that  of  the  Scribes 
took  its  place.  .  .  .  The  Scribes  had  not  in  themselves  the 
direct  and  masterful  authority  that  belonged  to  the  Prophets 
who  went  before  them.  They  were  not  themselves  com¬ 
missioned  to  say  4  Thus  saith  the  Lord.’  ” 

It  is  important  to  fix  firmly  in  our  minds  how 
fundamental  to  the  world  of  Jewish  thought  was 
this  doctrine  of  an  infallible  revelation  from  the  past. 

1  The  extraordinary  value — religious,  historic  and  literary — to  the 
world  as  well  as  to  the  nation  of  the  ancient  Jewish  literature  need 
not  be  dwelt  on  here.  This  value  is  recognized  not  only  by  all  pious 
but  by  all  educated  men.  What  we  are  here  concerned  to  note  are  the 
religious  drawbacks  attending  their  uncritical  acceptance. 

18 


JEWISH  FANTASY 


In  an  article  upon  Jewish  religion  in  the  first 
century  a.d.,  Mr  Claude  Montefiore  says : 

“  Between  God  and  the  Jew  there  was  a  middle  term.  Bare 
man  .  .  .  did  not  make  his  way  to  God  alone  and  as  best  he 
could,  serving  and  worshipping  Him  to  the  best  of  his  ability  .  . . 
with  no  dictation  or  demand  from  on  high.  What,  then,  was 
the  mediation,  or  who  were  the  mediators  ?  Institutions  or 
sacraments,  demigods  or  angels  ?  The  link,  the  middle  term, 
was  the  Law,  or,  more  properly  and  accurately,  the  Torah. 
What  is  the  Torah  ?  .  .  .  Torah  means  instruction,  teaching ; 
thus  it  is  a  wider  term  than  the  Pentateuch  or  the  Law.  It 
could  be  used  to  include  all  the  teachings  contained  in,  or  to  be 
elicited  from,  all  the  Sacred  Writings.  .  .  .  The  burden  of  the 
supposed  possession  of  a  perfect  Scripture  and  of  a  perfect  and 
authoritative  Law  had  its  drawbacks.”  1 


These  drawbacks  seem  to  be  :  (i)  As  we  have  seen, 
passages  that  come  from  a  lower  civilization  may  be 
cited  as  giving  authority  to  man’s  baser  passions. 

(2)  The  paradox  created  by  contradictory  statements, 
to  all  of  which  equal  value  must  be  assigned,  creates 
mental  confusion.  (3)  The  doctrine  of  infallible  revela¬ 
tion  belittles  human  intelligence. 

It  is  not  hard  to  see  that  this  doctrine  of  an  infallible 
revelation  in  human  speech  involves  the  belittling 
of  human  reason  and  values.  If  any  intelligent  man 
sits  down  and  asks  himself,  How  can  this  thing  be  ? 
the  natural  answer  would  be  that  the  perfectly  inspired 
man  must,  in  his  hour  of  inspiration,  be  overshadowed  Doctrine 
and  overcome  by  the  power  of  the  Highest,  so  that  the  ^fallibility 
erring  or  divided  mind  or  self,  of  which  all  men  are  belittles 
habitually  conscious,  would,  for  the  hour,  be  dumb,  values. 

All  men  know  that  “  to  err  is  human,”  and  a  man  who 
received  and  gave  forth  an  infallible  “  word  of  the 
Lord  ”  must  be,  for  the  time,  not  himself,  not  at  home 

1  Art.  in  Dr  Peake’s  Commentary ,  pp.  620,  623. 

19 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


in  his  own  brain  and  senses — in  other  words,  beside 
himself.  Hence  human  values  could  not  be  brought 
forward  as  tests  of  such  revelation  ;  human  reason 
could  have  no  power  to  criticize  it.  Thus,  in  a  nation 
believing  in  such  revelation,  man’s  values  and  reasons 
were  held  to  be  on  a  level  inferior  to  his  religious  visions, 
and  the  virtues  of  self-directed  moral  action  inferior  to 
those  brought  into  play  by  painstaking  docility  of  be¬ 
haviour.  With  the  Jews,  copying  and  repeating  the  Law, 
and  ordering  the  life  to  the  end  of  its  practical  observ¬ 
ance,  were  duties  higher  than  the  duty  of  thought, 
higher  than  any  duty  of  obedience  to  that  intense  sense 
of  value  which  we  call  personal  insight  or  intuition. 
Reason  was  Another  result  of  belittling  human  intelligence  was 
and  truth  that  the  Jews  'm  national  depression  sought  relief  in 

sought  for  dreams  and  emotional  visions,  believing  that  God’s 
in  dreams  ° 

and  visions,  truth  came  to  them  by  these  channels ;  and  because 
they  believed  that  pure  revelation  came  to  them  only 
from  the  past,  each  consoling  vision,  each  helpful 
instruction,  now  put  forth  was  credited  to  some 
religious  hero  of  the  past.  Professor  Burkitt  says : 


“  So  when  the  crisis  (the  persecution  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes) 
came  we  find  a  new  phenomenon.  The  Jew  who  feels  himself 
to  have  a  new  message  for  his  brethren  shelters  himself  under  a 
pseudonym.  The  original  literature  of  the  two  centuries  and 
a  half  that  preceded  the  capture  of  Jerusalem  (by  the  Romans  in 
70  a.d.)  is  either  anonymous,  or  it  professes  to  be  the  work  of 
some  worthy  of  old  time.  ...  It  is  well,  I  think,  to  remind 
ourselves  at  the  outset  that  the  authorship  of  the  Book  of 
Daniel  is  no  isolated  problem.  Baruch,  Ezra,  Solomon,  Moses, 
the  Twelve  Patriarchs,  Noah,  Enoch,  Adam — all  these  had 
Apocalypses  or  Testaments  fathered  upon  them.  It  is  difficult 
to  know  in  particular  cases  how  far  the  pseudonymity  was  an 
understood  literary  artifice  and  how  far  it  was  really  deceptive. 

20 


JEWISH  FANTASY 

What,  I  think,  is  clear  is  that  both  authors  and  readers  believed 
that  if  any  Revelation  from  God  was  true,  it  could  not  be  new. 

It  must  have  been  given  to  the  great  Saints  of  antiquity.”  1 

They  had,  as  we  have  seen,  the  basis  of  a  belief  Immor- 
in  a  coming  Golden  Age.  This  was  now  expected  to  Resiirrec- 
come  by  divine  catastrophe.  But  the  martyrs  who  tion- 
were  already  dead,  and  such  as  must  die  before  it 
came,  must  share  its  bliss.  A  life  after  death  must  be 
accepted.  The  form  which  this  life  took  was  also 
moulded,  as  we  shall  see,  by  the  need  of  a  compensating 
“  projection.”  When  the  nation,  out  of  its  dis¬ 
appointment  and  cruel  suffering,  developed  the  im¬ 
mortal  hope,  the  notion  of  spiritual  life  beyond  the 
grave  was  in  surrounding  nations  formless  and  shadowy 
in  the  extreme.  One  nation  thought  one  thing  about 
it,  and  another  another.  In  the  flux  of  life  round  the 
Mediterranean  several  doctrines  floated ;  but  as  the 
only  definite  pictures  that  man  can  form  are  com¬ 
pounded  of  earthly  material,  the  doctrine  of  re¬ 
incarnation  alone  among  Gentile  beliefs  offered  an 
imaginable  future.  Even  on  this  view  definite  expecta¬ 
tion  for  the  future  was  only  to  be  had,  as  it  were,  in 
patches ;  for  in  the  discarnate  intervals  through  which 
the  soul  must  pass,  everything  that  could  be  affirmed 
of  it  was  vague  because  bodiless.  The  doctrine  of 
successive  re-incarnations,  moreover,  carried  with  it 
the  notion  of  the  endless  wheel — the  mere  repetition  of 
cycles  of  events  which  contradicted  that  notion  of  goal 
implicit  in  law.  By  deifying  law  the  Jews  committed 
themselves  to  faith  in  a  definite  purpose  for  the  universe 
and  a  definite  goal  for  human  history  which  ruled  out 
the  idea  of  endless  repetition.  When,  then,  their  de- 

1  Jewish  and  Christian  Apocalypses,  p.  6. 

21 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Many  pious 
Jews  did 
not  accept 
apocalyptic 
visions. 


pressed  hearts  demanded  an  imaginative  picture  of 
compensating  bliss  that  should  come  after  the  martyr’s 
death,  they  were  logically  bound  to  postulate  the  resur¬ 
rection  of  the  body  and  the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth. 

In  storm  and  stress  this  God-fearing  nation  divined 
some  truths  that  bear  the  test  of  ages.  It  passed 
them  on  in  transitory  images.  How  far  the  authors 
of  the  apocalypses  knew  that  they  were  writing 
poetic  fiction,  how  far  they  may  have  been  subject 
to  trance  visions  and  voices,  cannot  be  known.  It  is, 
however,  certain — and  it  is  important  to  keep  this 
in  mind — that  not  all  the  Jews — not  all  the  religious 
Jews — accepted  the  apocalypses  as  inspired,  or  even 
in  thought  dallied  with  their  fantastic  imagery.  In 
this  period  we  have  Wisdom  books  which  are  not 
apocalyptic.  After  the  conquest  by  Alexander  many 
pious  families  of  the  returned  exiles  emigrated  to 
other  parts  of  the  Hellenized  world.  These  early 
“  Jews  of  the  Dispersion,”  while  faithful  to  God  and  the 
law,  absorbed  Greek  culture,  and,  most  likely  going 
backward  and  forward  between  Jerusalem  and  Greek 
cities,  would  be  critical  of  the  doctrine  of  the  bodily 
resurrection  and  the  hope  of  a  speedy  supernatural  cat¬ 
astrophe.  The  resurrection  of  the  body  was  a  material¬ 
istic  idea  compared  with  the  highest  Greek  conceptions 
of  the  immortality  of  the  soul.  The  apocalyptic 
visions  were  materialistic  and  sensational  compared 
with  the  spiritual  teaching  of  Jeremiah  and  the  Second 
Isaiah.  One  truly  religious  party  in  the  state  even 
rejected  the  then  modern  notion  of  personal  immor¬ 
tality.  This  party  —  afterwards  called  Sadducees 
• — jeered  at  the  supposed  authority  of  these  apoca¬ 
lyptic  books.  The  only  one  that,  after  long  debate 


22 


JEWISH  FANTASY 

in  the  rabbinical  schools,  found  access  to  the  Jewish 
Canon  was  the  Book  of  Daniel ,  which  obviously 
had  other  points  of  interest.  The  great  rabbis  of  the 
first  century  of  our  era  finally  rid  the  orthodox  Jewish 
religion  of  all  belief  in  a  supernatural  catastrophe  and 
its  attendant  eschatological  beliefs.  The  assumption 
made  by  some  in  recent  times  that  all  pious  Jews 
accepted  the  apocalyptic  panorama  of  the  future  and 
therefore  Jesus  must  have  accepted  it,  is  not  justified. 

The  problems  raised  by  it  were  still  in  debate  in  the 
time  of  Jesus.  What  appears  certain  is  that  no  intelli¬ 
gent  Jew  could  have  been  ignorant  of  these  apocalyptic 
books 1 ;  no  intelligent  Jew  could  have  failed  to  ponder 
the  conceptions  of  divine  justice  and  divine  power 
which  they  so  graphically  set  forth.  If  Jesus  in  his 
public  teaching  contradicted  their  fundamental  doc¬ 
trines  of  God  and  man,  he  could  not  have  both  con¬ 
tradicted  those  doctrines  and  held  them. 

It  is  important  to  realize  that,  while  the  notion  of  a  But  under- 

supernatural  catastrophe  as  God’s  way  to  right  the  conceptions 

wrong  was  not  common  to  all  religious  lews,  those  who  of  God  and 
0  .  .  °  J  man  were 

held  themselves  aloof  from  it  had  the  same  under-  common 
lying  conception  of  God  and  man,  of  law  and  punish-  t0  ali’ 
ment ;  and  also  that  neither  the  one  party  nor  the 
other  was  satisfied  with  any  current  thought  concerning 
the  problems  of  divine  justice  and  power  which  are  the 
main  themes  of  all  the  literature  of  the  period. 

We  shall  first  see  what  conceptions  of  God  and  of  man 
are  put  forward  in  this  pseudonymous  literature,  and  next 
hope  to  show  how  clearly  the  writers  apprehended  the 
unsolved  problems  to  which  these  conceptions  gave  birth. 

1  The  fact  that  these  apocalypses  were  translated  into  the  several 
languages  spoken  in  the  Jewish  world  is  evidence  of  this. 

23 


CHAPTER  III 


Temporary 
torture  for 
the  good ; 


age-long 
torture  or 
destruction 
for  the 
wicked. 


THE  JEWISH  IDEA  OF  GOD  AS  JUDGE 

It  was  in  the  two  centuries  preceding  the  birth  of 
Christ  and  in  the  first  century  a.d.  that  the  books  that 
we  are  to  examine  were  written,  collected,  edited  and 
re-edited,  copied  and  translated  into  the  many  lan¬ 
guages  spoken  in  Syria  and  Egypt.1  In  these  books  we 
have  the  conception  of  God  which  Jesus  found  in  his 
environment.  It  is  with  this  conception  that  we  must 
compare  his  own  teaching  about  the  Father  if  we  would 
discover  what  is  original  and  essential  to  that  teaching. 

In  these  apocalyptic  writings  the  main  idea  associated 
with  God  is  that  of  discipline  and  judgment.  Nothing 
happens  to  men  by  chance,  and  the  operation  of  natural 
law  is  scarcely  recognized.  In  this  world  God  sends 
many  afflictions  to  the  righteous.  His  reasons  for 
this  are  stated  differently  by  different  authors,  but  all 
agree  that  He  inflicts  considerable  torture  on  the 
righteous  in  this  life.  His  mercy,  however,  is  always 
available  for  the  righteous ;  and  after  their  afflictions 
He  provides  for  them  the  reward  of  eternal  satisfactions. 
God’s  providential  mercy  to  sinners  simply  takes  the 
form  of  giving  them  a  long  chance.  This  degree  of 
mercy  is  greatly  extolled.  Whenever  that  chance  ends 

1  The  more  important  of  these  books  are  now  easily  accessible  in 
&  series  of  translations  published  by  S.P.C.K, 

24 


THE  JEWISH  IDEA  OF  GOD  AS  JUDGE 

His  judgment  is  final ;  His  vengeance  upon  them  is 
terrible  and  implacable.  During  the  long  chance 
God  provides  for  him  in  this  life  the  human  sinner  may 
repent,  that  is,  he  may  cease  to  be  an  unrighteous 
person  and  become  a  righteous  one  ;  but  in  the  case  of 
human  beings  after  this  life  or  of  fallen  angels,  no  grief 
for  their  sins,  no  recognition  of  God’s  righteousness, 
will  be  of  any  avail. 

The  Hebrew  seers  of  this  period  thought  of  the  divine 
power  as  personal,  universal  and  moral.  All  history 
was  regarded  as  moving,  under  divine  control,  to  the 
entire  elimination  of  evil  and  the  realization  of  good. 
Their  ethic  was  in  many  ways  the  purest  the  world  then 
knew.  Their  God  regarded  nothing  in  man  but  his 
righteousness  or  unrighteousness ;  so  pre-eminent  was 
the  importance  of  moral  conduct  that  a  man’s  strength 
or  beauty  or  skill  went  for  little  or  nothing  in  God’s 
sight.  The  domestic  and  neighbourly  virtues  required 
of  men  were  on  a  high  level  and  were  positive  as 
well  as  negative  ;  although  any  degree  of  positive  virtue 
was  valueless  if  combined  with  neglect  of  ritual  law. 
The  righteous  man  had  continual  access  to  the  spiritual 
world,  and  his  conception  of  his  share  in  the  joy  of  God 
when  righteousness  should  be  consummated  gives  rise 
to  some  of  the  noblest  hopes  and  aspirations  ever 
expressed  in  human  language.  The  picture  of 
friendship  between  righteous  souls  and  a  righteous 
God  is  a  priceless  gift  which  Judaism  gave  to  the 
world. 

But  the  main  burden  of  these  books  is  the  scarcity  of 
righteous  souls  and  God’s  implacable  vengeance  on  the 
unrighteous.  This  judgment  is  regarded  as  divine, 
whether  conceived  as  executed  by  God  in  person  or 

25 


High  moral 
and 

religious 
value  of 
the  legal 
idea  of  God. 


But  the 

emphasis  is 
on  divine 
vengeance. 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


through  an  agent  such  as  the  “  Son  of  Man  ”  of  the 
Book  of  Enoch.  The  spirit  of  cruelty  breathes  in  their 
doctrine  of  divine  justice.  The  very  bliss  of  the 
righteous,  even  when  otherwise  nobly  and  spiritually 
conceived,  is  described  as  consisting  partly  in  witnessing 
the  torments  God  is  inflicting  on  the  unrighteous. 

The  Gentiles  were  not  thought  of  as  ruled  by  a 
different  idea  of  God,  but  as  merely  “  ungodly.” 
Impious  Jews  were  even  worse  than  ungodly.  Worst  of 
all  were  the  Gentiles  who  oppressed  the  Jews.  God 
was  not  thought  of  as  able  to  overcome  sin  and  save  the 
sinners  ;  it  was  only  by  the  destruction  of  all  the 
ungodly  and  sinners  that  God  and  good  could  prevail. 
In  the  sight  of  God,  as  they  conceived  Him,  the  crime 
of  lese-majestd  was  the  worst  of  crimes. 

From  the  parables  and  visions  ascribed  to  Enoch 1 
I  quote  a  few  passages  concerning  the  punishment  of 
sinners. 

In  the  description  of  the  day  of  God’s  self-revelation 
we  read  : 


The  belief 
that  God 
tortures 
men  to 
establish 
His  own 
honour. 


“  And  behold !  He  cometh  with  ten  thousands  of  His 
holy  ones 

To  execute  judgment  upon  all, 

And  to  destroy  the  ungodly  ; 

To  convict  all  flesh 

Of  all  the  works  of  their  ungodliness  which  they  have 
ungodly  committed, 

And  of  all  the  hard  things  which  ungodly  sinners  have 
spoken  against  Him.” — Book  of  Enoch ,  i.  9. 


1  In  quoting  the  apocalypses  I  for  convenience  assume,  for  the 
most  part,  unity  of  authorship  in  each  book,  though,  as  a  fact,  many 
are  of  composite  authorship.  All  that  concerns  us,  however,  is  the 
way  in  which  the  books  reflected  and  affected  the  beliefs  of  the 
religious  mind  of  that  day,  for  which  consideration  the  manner  of 
compilation  is  immaterial. 


26 


THE  JEWISH  IDEA  OF  GOD  AS  JUDGE 

It  is  not  enough  that  the  Gentiles  should  suffer ; 
unfaithful  Jews  are  condemned  : 

“  But  ye — ye  have  not  been  steadfast,  nor  done  the  com¬ 
mandments  of  the  Lord.  .  .  . 

Therefore  shall  ye  execrate  your  days, 

And  the  years  of  your  life  shall  perish, 

And  the  years  of  your  destruction  shall  be  multiplied  in 
eternal  execration, 

And  ye  shall  find  no  mercy.” — Ibid.,  v.  4,  5. 

Thus  the  angel  Raphael  describes  the  use  of  a  hollow  The  first 

•  1  1  <*  ni  1  vision  of 

in  the  rocks  01  bheol :  hejL 

“  And  this  has  been  made  for  sinners  when  they  die  and  are 
buried  in  the  earth  and  judgment  has  not  been  executed  upon 
them  in  their  lifetime.  Here  their  spirits  shall  be  set  apart  in 
this  great  pain,  till  the  great  day  of  judgment,  scourgings  and 
torments  of  the  accursed  for  ever,  so  that  there  may  be  retribu¬ 
tion  for  their  spirits.” — Ibid.,  xxii.  9. 

Thus  God  upholds  His  own  honour,  making  the  hell 
of  souls  who  have  spoken  ill  of  Him  a  spectacle  for  souls 
in  heaven  : 

“  Then  Uriel,  one  of  the  holy  angels  who  was  with  me,  Origin 
answered  and  said  :  6  This  accursed  valley  is  for  those  who  are  mediaeval 
accursed  for  ever  :  here  shall  all  be  gathered  together  who  hell, 
utter  with  their  lips  against  the  Lord  unseemly  words  and  of 
His  glory  speak  hard  things.  Here  shall  they  be  gathered 
together,  and  here  shall  be  their  place  of  judgment.  In  the 
last  days  there  shall  be  upon  them  the  spectacle  of  righteous 
judgment  in  the  presence  of  the  righteous  for  ever.’  ” — Ibid., 
xxvii.  2,  3. 

This  scene  is  still  depicted  over  the  west  door  of 
many  mediaeval  churches : 

“  And  there  I  saw  the  mansions  of  the  elect  and  the  mansions 
of  the  holy,  and  mine  eyes  saw  there  all  the  sinners  being  driven 

27 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


The  blame 
Laid  on 
wicked 
angels. 


from  thence  which  deny  the  name  of  the  Lord  of  Spirits,  and 
being  dragged  off  :  and  they  could  not  abide  because  of  the 
punishment  which  proceeds  from  the  Lord  of  Spirits.” — Ibid., 
xli.  2. 

Here  are  the  demons  likewise  familiar  in  Gothic 
art : 

“  There  mine  eyes  saw  a  deep  valley  with  open  mouths.  ...  I 
saw  all  the  angels  of  punishment  abiding  there  and  preparing 
all  the  instruments  of  Satan.  And  I  asked  the  angel  of  peace 
who  went  with  me  :  ‘For  whom  are  they  preparing  these 
instruments  ?  ’  And  he  said  unto  me  :  ‘  They  prepare  these 
for  the  kings  and  the  mighty  of  this  earth  that  they  may  thereby 
be  destroyed.’  ” — Ibid.,  liii.  I,  3-5. 

In  Enoch’s  hell  we  also  find  angels.  This  is  explained 
— in  part  at  least — by  the  fact  that  in  many  of  the 
books  of  our  period,  both  in  the  Apocalypses  and 
in  the  Wisdom  literature,  this  obvious  problem  con¬ 
fronted  the  thinking  Jew  :  if  God’s  law  was  the  only 
means  of  salvation,  why  did  the  great  majority  of  men 
neglect  it  ?  They  commonly  took  refuge  in  the 
traditional  belief  that  some  angels  had  fallen  into 
sin  and  then  beguiled  men.  This  only  moved  the 
problem  further  back,  and  was  not  used  to  exonerate 
man,  for  it  does  not  appear  that  they  thought  God  less 
angry  with  men  because  they  had  been  beguiled,  or  had 
inherited  this  angelic  transgression.  The  fall  of  the 
angels  is  described  as  caused  by  love  for  the  daughters 
of  men.  Having  come  to  earth  and  taken  each  a  wife, 
they  taught  men  the  arts  and  crafts  of  a  corrupt  civiliza¬ 
tion.  They  are  represented  as  having  human  affec¬ 
tions,  through  which  God  tortures  them.  Their 
transgression  and  fate,  as  described  below,  illustrate 
our  point,  which  is,  that  God  was  conceived  as  dealing 

28 


THE  JEWISH  IDEA  OF  GOD  AS  JUDGE 

out  implacable  vengeance  on  all  unrighteous  and  all 
oppressors  of  His  people. 

We  get  this  traditional  explanation  of  the  cause  of 
sin  set  forth  vividly  and  with  poetic  power  in  the  Book 
of  Enoch,  The  fallen  angels  are  called  “  Watchers  ”  : 

“  And  again  the  Lord  said  to  Raphael, 
£  Bind  Azazel  hand  and  foot,  and  cast  him  into  the  darkness ; 
and  make  an  opening  in  the  desert,  which  is  in  Dudael,  and  cast 
him  therein.  And  place  upon  him  rough  and  jagged  rocks, 
and  cover  him  with  darkness,  and  let  him  abide  there  for  ever, 
and  cover  his  face  that  he  may  not  see  light.  And  on  the  day  of 
the  great  judgment  he  shall  be  cast  into  the  fire.5  .  .  .  And  to 
Gabriel  said  the  Lord  :  £  Proceed  against  the  bastards  and  the 
reprobates,  and  against  the  children  of  fornication  :  and  destroy 
the  children  of  the  Watchers  from  amongst  men.’  .  .  .  And  the 
Lord  said  unto  Michael :  £  Go,  bind  Semjaza  and  his  associates, 
who  have  united  themselves  with  women  so  as  to  have  defiled 
themselves  with  them  in  all  their  uncleanness.  ...  In  those 
days  they  shall  be  led  off  to  the  abyss  of  fire  :  and  to  the  torment 
and  the  prison  in  which  they  shall  be  confined  for  ever.’  ” 
»••••••• 

“  And  I,  Enoch,  was  blessing  the  Lord  of  majesty  and  the 
King  of  the  ages,  and  lo  !  the  Watchers  called  me — Enoch  the 
scribe — and  said  to  me  :  £  Enoch,  thou  scribe  of  righteous¬ 
ness,  go,  declare  to  the  Watchers  of  the  heaven  who  have  left 
the  high  heaven,  the  holy  eternal  place,  and  have  defiled  them¬ 
selves  with  women,  and  have  done  as  the  children  of  earth  do, 
and  have  taken  unto  themselves  wives  :  ££  We  have  wrought 
great  destruction  on  the  earth  :  and  ye  shall  have  no  peace  nor 
forgiveness  of  sin.”  .  .  .  Over  the  destruction  of  their  children 
shall  they  lament,  and  shall  make  supplication  unto  eternity, 
but  mercy  and  peace  shall  ye  not  attain.’ 

•  «•••••# 

And  Enoch  went  and  said:  £ Azazel,  thou  shalt  have  no 
peace:  a  severe  sentence  has  gone  forth  against  thee  to  put  thee 
in  bonds:  and  thou  shalt  not  have  toleration  nor  request  granted 
to  thee,  because  of  the  unrighteousness  which  thou  hast  taught, 

29 


No  forgive¬ 
ness  for  the 
repentant 
in  the  spirit 
world. 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


and  because  of  all  the  works  of  godlessness  and  unrighteousness 
and  sin  which  thou  hast  shown  to  men.’  Then  I  went  and  spoke 
to  them  all  together,  and  they  were  all  afraid,  and  fear  and 
trembling  seized  them.  And  they  besought  me  to  draw  up  a 
petition  for  them  that  they  might  find  forgiveness,  and  to 
read  their  petition  in  the  presence  of  the  Lord  of  heaven.  For 
from  thenceforward  they  could  not  speak  with  Him  nor  lift  up 
their  eyes  to  heaven  for  shame  of  their  sins  for  which  they  had 
been  condemned.  Then  I  wrote  out  their  petition,  and  the 
prayer  in  regard  to  their  spirits  and  their  deeds  individually 
and  in  regard  to  their  requests  that  they  should  have  forgiveness 
and  length  of  days.” — Ibid,.,  x.  4-1 3  ;  xii.  3-6;  xiii.  1-6. 

Enoch  returns  to  them  this  answer,  which  well 
illustrates  the  Jewish  idea  of  God’s  righteous  judgment : 

“  I  wrote  out  your  petition,  and  in  my  vision  it  appeared  thus, 
that  your  petition  will  not  be  granted  unto  you  throughout  all 
the  days  of  eternity,  and  that  judgment  has  been  finally  passed 
upon  you  :  yea,  your  petition  will  not  be  granted  unto  you. 
And  from  henceforth  you  shall  not  ascend  into  heaven  unto  all 
eternity,  and  in  bonds  of  the  earth  the  decree  has  gone  forth 
to  bind  you  for  all  the  days  of  the  world.  And  that  previously 
you  shall  have  seen  the  destruction  of  your  beloved  sons  and  you 
shall  have  no  pleasure  in  them,  but  they  shall  fall  before  you 
by  the  sword.  And  your  petition  on  their  behalf  shall  not  be 
granted,  nor  yet  on  your  own  :  even  though  you  weep  and  pray 
and  speak  all  the  words  contained  in  the  writing  which  I  have 
written.” — Ibid.,  xiv.  4-7. 

Enoch  then  proceeds  on  his  journeys,  and  thus  again 
reports  on  the  punishment  of  the  angels  : 

u  I  saw  a  horrible  thing  :  a  great  fire  there  which  burnt  and 
blazed,  and  the  place  was  cleft  as  far  as  the  abyss,  being  full  of 
great  descending  columns  of  fire  :  neither  its  extent  nor  magni¬ 
tude  could  I  see,  nor  could  I  conjecture.  Then  I  said,  6  How 
fearful  is  the  place,  and  how  terrible  to  look  upon  !  ’  Then 
Uriel  answered  me,  one  of  the  holy  angels  who  was  with  me, 
and  said  unto  me  :  4  Enoch,  why  hast  thou  such  fear  and 

30 


THE  JEWISH  IDEA  OF  GOD  AS  JUDGE 

affright  ?  5  And  I  answered  :  e  Because  of  this  fearful  place, 
and  because  of  the  spectacle  of  the  pain.5  And  he  said  unto 
me:  ‘  This  place  is  the  prison  of  the  angels,  and  here  they  will 
be  imprisoned  for  ever.5  — Ibid.,  xxi.  7-10. 

The  tortures  which  these  fallen  angels  undergo,  and 
also  those  heaped  upon  the  potentates  who  oppressed 

Israel,  are  referred  to  so  often  that  it  would  seem  Vengeful 

delight  in 
the 

innumerable  readers  must  have  delighted  in  these  spectacle 
descriptions  of  divine  vengeance.  Later  on  in  the  °f  pain' 
book  Noah  is  represented  as  prophesying  what 
seems  to  be  a  contrivance  by  which  the  bodies  of  the 
angels  who  beguiled  mankind,  and  the  kings  of  the 
earth  who  oppressed  men,  should  be  sustained  to 
endure  prolonged  torture  : 

“  And  He  will  imprison  those  angels  who  have  shown  un¬ 
righteousness  in  that  burning  valley  ...  in  which  there 
was  a  convulsion  of  the  waters.  .  .  .  Through  its  valleys 
proceed  streams  of  fire,  where  these  angels  are  punished  who 
had  led  astray  those  who  dwell  on  the  earth,  for  the  healing 
of  the  body,  but  for  the  punishment  of  the  spirit.  .  .  .  And 
in  proportion  as  the  burning  of  their  bodies  becomes  severe,  a 
corresponding  change  shall  take  place  in  their  spirit  for  ever  and 
ever  ;  for  before  the  Lord  of  Spirits  none  shall  utter  an  idle 
word.  For  the  judgment  shall  come  upon  them,  because  they 
believe  in  the  lust  of  their  body  and  deny  the  Spirit  of  the 
Lord.  .  .  .  Therefore  they  will  not  see  and  will  not  believe  that 
those  waters  will  change  and  become  a  fire  which  burns  for 
ever.55 — Ibid.,  lxvii.  4-13. 

These  vivid  fragments  would  not  of  themselves  be  so 
important  but  for  the  fact  that  there  is  nothing  in  any 
part  of  the  Hebrew  literature  of  our  period  to  contra¬ 
dict  the  idea  of  God’s  vengeance  upon  sinners  as  implac¬ 
able  and  insatiable. 


that  the  various  authors  of  the  Book  of  Enoch  and  its 


3T 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Pre- 

Christian 
teaching  on 
forgiveness. 


Of  the  pre-Christian  books,  the  Testaments  of  the 
Twelve  Patriarchs  gives  us  the  most  gentle  and  noble 
idea  of  man’s  duty  to  man.  This  book  comes  nearest 
to  Christian  teaching  concerning  forbearance  and 
forgiveness  between  brothers  of  one  race  ;  it  seems, 
however,  to  be  urged  for  the  sake  of  creating  a  union  of 
hearts  in  face  of  a  non-Jewish  world.  There  is  little 
scope  in  this  book  for  discussing  the  final  judgments  of 
God  because  all  its  injunctions  are  addressed  by  a  father 
to  his  own  children  and  grandchildren,  a  chosen  race 
for  whom  final  salvation  is  here  assumed  to  be  for  the 
most  part  secure.  Yet  the  same  idea  of  God’s  ven¬ 
geance  on  the  wicked  is  in  the  background,  and  occasion¬ 
ally  appears  : 

“  Hear,  therefore,  regarding  the  heavens  which  have  been 
shown  to  thee.  The  lowest  is  for  this  cause  gloomy  unto  thee, 
in  that  it  beholds  all  the  unrighteous  deeds  of  men.  And  it 
has  fire,  snow,  and  ice  made  ready  for  the  day  of  judgment,  in 
the  righteous  judgment  of  God  ;  for  in  it  are  all  the  spirits  of 
the  retributions  for  vengeance  on  men.  And  in  the  second  are 
the  hosts  of  the  armies  which  are  ordained  for  the  day  of  judg¬ 
ment,  to  work  vengeance  on  the  spirits  of  deceit  and  of  Beliar. 
And  above  them  are  the  holy  ones.  And  in  the  highest  of  all 
dwelleth  the  Great  Glory,  far  above  all  holiness.” — Testaments 
of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs — Levi.  iii.  1-3. 

There  are  other  descriptions  of  the  results  of  God’s 
future  judgment,  but  this  is  enough  for  our  purpose. 
Here  is  a  statement  of  God’s  providence  for  the  unruly 
on  earth  : 

“  Therefore  the  temple,  which  the  Lord  shall  choose,  shall  be 
laid  waste  through  your  uncleanness,  and  ye  shall  be  captives 
throughout  all  nations.  And  ye  shall  be  an  abomination  unto 
them,  and  ye  shall  receive  reproach  and  everlasting  shame  from 
the  righteous  judgment  of  God.  And  all  who  hate  you  shall 

3  2 


THE  JEWISH  IDEA  OF  GOD  AS  JUDGE 

rejoice  at  your  destruction.  And  if  you  were  not  to  receive 
mercy  through  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  our  fathers,  not 
one  of  our  seed  should  be  left  upon  the  earth.” — Ibid, — 
Levi.  xv.  1-4. 

The  strongest  and  most  beautiful  exhortation  to 
brotherly  love  and  to  forgiveness  of  the  brother  who 
has  committed  an  injury  ends  upon  the  note  of  God’s 
vengeance  : 

t£  If  he  be  shameless  and  persisteth  in  his  wrongdoing,  even  so 
forgive  him  from  the  heart,  and  leave  to  God  the  avenging.” — 
Ibid. — Gad.  vi.  7.  , 

Nor  is  this  conception  of  God  confined  to  the  highly 
visionary  language  of  the  apocalypses. 

In  the  Wisdom  of  Ben-Sira  ( Ecclesiasticus )  also  there 
is  a  lofty  teaching  as  to  the  duty  of  human  forbearance, 

but  behind  it  is  the  same  belief  in  God’s  vengeance  : 

■■  ■ .  ••  /  T 

“  Woe  unto  the  faint  heart  ;  because  it  believeth  not, 
Therefore  it  shall  not  be  sheltered. 

Woe  unto  you  that  have  lost  patience, 

And  what  will  ye  do  when  the  Lord  visiteth  you  ?  ” 

Wisdom  of  Ben-Sira ,  ii.  13-14. 

“  Yea,  and  if  there  be  one  that  is  stiff-necked, 

A  marvel  would  it  be  if  he  were  not  punished. 

For  mercy  and  wrath  are  with  Him, 

He  forgiveth  and  pardoneth,  but  upon  the  wicked 
doth  He  cause  His  wrath  to  alight.” 

Ibid.,  xvi.  11. 

“  Like  tow  wrapped  together  is  the  gathering  of  the  ungodly, 
And  their  end  is  a  flame  of  fire. 

The  way  of  sinners  is  made  smooth,  without  stones, 

And  at  the  end  thereof  is  the  pit  of  Hades.” 

Ibid.,  xxi.  9-10. 

“  There  are  winds  that  are  created  for  vengeance, 

And  in  their  wrath  lay  on  their  scourges  heavily  ; 

33  c 


Forgive 
because 
God  will 
not  forgive 


Divine 
vengeance 
in  Wisdom 
books. 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


And  in  the  time  of  the  end  they  pour  out  their  strength, 
And  appease  the  wrath  of  Him  that  created  them. 
Fire  and  hail,  famine  and  pestilence, 

These  also  are  created  for  judgment. 

Beasts  of  prey,  scorpions  and  vipers, 

And  the  avenging  sword  to  slay  the  wicked, 

All  these  are  created  for  their  uses, 

And  are  in  His  treasure-house,  and  in  their  time  shall 
be  requisitioned.” — Ibid.,  xxxix.  28-30. 

In  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  we  get  these  lines  concern¬ 
ing  the  retribution  that  shall  come  upon  the  ungodly  : 

<c  And  them  shall  the  Lord  laugh  to  scorn. 

And  after  this  they  shall  become  a  dishonoured  carcase, 
And  for  a  mockery  among  the  dead  for  ever. 

For  he  shall  dash  them  speechless  to  the  ground. 

And  shall  shake  them  from  their  foundations  ; 

And  they  shall  be  utterly  desolated, 

And  shall  be  in  torment, 

And  their  memory  shall  perish. 

And  they  shall  come,  at  the  reckoning  up  of  their  sins,  in 
coward  fear. 

And  their  lawless  deeds  shall  convict  them  to  their  face.” 

Wisdom  of  Solomon ,  iv.  19-20. 


In  this  connection  we  may  read  such  passages  as 
Ezekiel  vii.  1-9  with  its  refrain  :  “  Mine  eye  shall  not 
spare,  neither  will  I  have  pity,”  or  Malachi  iv.  or  the 
imprecatory  Psalms. 

It  is  needless  to  quote  from  the  Book  of  Daniel  and 
the  Book  of  Esther  to  show  that  these  books  also  breathe 
God  pitiless  an  undoubting  belief  in  the  divine  vengeance.  In 
Daniel  viii.  there  is  a  vision  in  which  a  goat  with  a 
notable  horn  came  upon  a  ram  and  “  ran  into  him  in  the 
fury  of  his  power.  .  .  .  There  was  no  power  in  the  ram 
to  stand  before  him,  but  he  cast  him  down  to  theground 
and  stamped  upon  him.”  In  the  next  chapter  this 

34 


to  the 
wicked. 


THE  JEWISH  IDEA  OF  GOD  AS  JUDGE 

same  quality  of  fury  is  attributed  to  God.  This  same 
word  translated  “  fury  55  is  used  in  a  prayer  in  which 
Daniel,  while  extolling  God’s  mercy,  entreats  that  His 
“  fury  ”  may  at  last  be  “  turned  away  from  Jerusalem,” 
which  is  now  suffering  because  of  sin.  In  Daniel  also 
we  have  an  early  record  of  belief  in  the  resurrection  of 
the  wicked.1  They  shall  “  awake  ”  from  the  long 
sleep  of  death  ;  they  shall  awake  and  arise  to  life  on 
this  beautiful  earth,  but,  by  God’s  ordaining,  only  to 
“  shame  and  everlasting  contempt.” 

The  Book  of  Esther  is  a  story  written  in  cruel  times. 
It  may  not  have  been  as  cruel  in  its  original  form  as  in 
the  form  we  know ;  but  it  could  only  have  been 
written  and  enjoyed  by  a  religious  people  who  believed 
that  vengeance  was  an  attribute  of  God. 

When  we  pass  to  the  latter  part  of  the  first  century 
a.d.  after  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  we  certainly  get,  in  the 
reflections  of  thoughtful  Jews  upon  the  fall  of  Jeru¬ 
salem,  a  softened  tone  with  regard  to  the  suffering  even 
of  the  wicked  ;  but  there  is  no  suggestion  of  divine 
relenting  towards  them.  We  quote  these  books  be¬ 
cause,  although  written  after  Jesus  had  passed  from 
earth,  they  represent  the  continuum  of  the  traditional 
atmosphere  that  surrounded  him. 

In  the  Apocalypse  of  Ezra  we  find,  among  other 
references  to  God’s  punishments,  these  passages  : 

I  •  'V 

“  And  the  Most  High  shall  be  revealed  upon  the  throne  of 
judgment ; 

and  the  end  shall  come, 

and  compassion  pass  away, 

and  pity  be  far  off, 

and  long-suffering  be  withdrawn.” 

1  Dan.  xii.  2. 

35 


Authors 
who  were 
young  when 
Jesus 
preached. 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


God 

indifferent 
to  the 
perishing 
multitudes 


Pity  may  well  be  “  far  off,”  for  the  joy  of  the  saved  is 

to  be  heightened  by  contrast  with  the  torments  of  the 

■ 

lost : 

“  And  the  pit  of  torment  shall  appear, 
but  over  against  this  the  place  of  rest ; 
the  furnace  of  Gehenna  shall  be  revealed, 
and  over  against  it  the  Paradise  of  delights. 

And  then  shall  the  Most  High  say  to  those  nations  that 
have  been  raised  : 

Gaze  and  see  what  ye  have  denied, 

or  whom  ye  have  not  served, 

or  whose  commandments  ye  have  despised  ! 

Look,  therefore,  over  against  you  : 
behold  here  rest  and  enjoyments, 
and  there  fire  and  torment  ! 

Thus  shall  he  speak  to  them  in  that  Day  of  Judgment.”  1 

Apocalypse  of  Ezra ,  Vision  III.  vii.  33,  36-38. 

When  the  seer  himself  compassionates  the  lot  of  the 
wicked  he  receives  this  final  reply  from  God  : 

“  Do  not  thou,  therefore,  again  ask  any  more  concerning  the 
many  who  perish  ;  because  they  have  received  liberty  and 
they  have  despised  the  Most  High, 
his  Law  also  have  they  scorned  much, 
and  have  made  his  ways  to  cease  : 

Yea,  his  saints  they  have  trampled  upon,  and  they  have  said 
in  their  heart  that  there  is  no  God,  while  they  verily  know  that 
they  shall  surely  die. 

Therefore  as  these  things  aforesaid  await  you,  so  also  thirst 
and  torment  are  destined  for  them.” — Ibid.,  viii.  5 5~59-2 

In  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch ,  much  of  which  has  its 
origin  in  the  same  period  as  the  Apocalypse  of  Ezra , 

1  This  conception  is  in  line  with  such  passages  of  Christian 
literature  as  the  rejoicing  of  the  saints  over  the  destruction  of  Babylon 
in  Revelation  xviii.  20  and  xix.  1-3. 

2  Cf.  ibid.,  viii.  1-3  and  ix.  15-16,  showing  the  vast  preponderance 
of  those  doomed  to  perish. 

36 


THE  JEWISH  IDEA  OF  GOD  AS  JUDGE 

we  again  see  a  human  compassion  for  the  wicked 
not  emphasized  in  earlier  books ;  but  again  there  is  no 
echo  or  reflection  of  this  pity  in  the  divine  vengeance. 
Baruch  in  his  last  prayer  is  represented  as  saying  : 

“  For  at  the  consummation  of  the  world  there  shall  be 
vengeance  taken  upon  those  who  have  done  wickedness  accord¬ 
ing  to  their  wickedness ;  .  .  .  And  those  who  sin  Thou  Hottest 
out  from  among  thine  own.” — Apocalypse  of  Baruch ,  liv.  21,  22. 

It  is  on  this  note  that  the  book  ends. 

Thus  in  reading  the  Jewish  literature  of  the  period 
we  see  plainly,  both  in  the  Apocalyptic  and  Wisdom 
books,  that  Jesus  Christ  came  into  a  world  which  could 
not  conceive  of  a  God  who  did  not,  in  the  long  run, 
take  terrible  vengeance  on  all  His  enemies. 


37 


CHAPTER  IV 


Jewish 
seers  and 
mediaeval 
monks. 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  GOD’s  LOVE  AND  CRUELTY 

The  Jews  were  a  keen-minded  people,  but,  as  we  have 
seen,  they  had  to  contrive  to  use  their  minds  within  the 
strict  limit  of  a  received  revelation,  beyond  which 
limit  reason  and  moral  insight  were  held  to  be  invalid. 
We  have  an  analogous  situation  in  Christendom  in  the 
monastic  speculations  of  the  Middle  Ages.  In  both  cases 
reason  was  confined  within  the  bounds  of  a  received 
revelation,  and  in  both  cases  the  religious  insight  and 
the  moral  values  of  good  men  were  on  a  higher  level 
than  much  of  the  supposed  revelation*  and  tended  to 
degenerate  to  match  what  were  really  the  primitive 
premisses  and  dimmer  insight  of  a  less  developed  civili¬ 
zation. 

The  result  was  twofold.  What  was  best,  what  was 
true,  in  the  earlier  religion  was  emphasized  and  carried 
forward  by  the  religious  experience  and  reflection 
of  thoughtful  and  high-minded  men  ;  but,  also,  what 
was  unworthy  and  degrading  in  the  earlier  religion  was 
so  rationalized  and  stereotyped  that  it  acquired  a  per¬ 
manent  and  unnatural  importance,  sucking  the  life¬ 
blood  of  religious  thinking.  Strange  exaltations  of 
savage  fancies1  were  not  the  only  bad  result  of  a  belief  in 
a  finished  revelation.  God  in  His  relation  to  man  was 

1  Cf.  Chap.  ii.  p.  19. 

4  8 


PROBLEM  OF  GOD’S  LOVE  AND  CRUELTY 


seen,  not  simply  as  the  best  and  wisest  being  of  whom 
man — at  that  stage  of  his  development — could  con¬ 
ceive,  but  as  a  mixture  of  good  and  evil,  and  therefore 
hostile,  not  to  all  those  things  to  which  man  at  his 
best  was  hostile,  but  to  much  that  was  best  in  man.1 
This  contradiction  between  man’s  highest  ideal  and 
what  he  conceived  God  to  be,  felt  even  when  not 
admitted  to  open-eyed  consciousness,  produced  neces¬ 
sarily  a  complex  system  of  doctrine  at  variance  with  the 
plain  man’s  reason  and  values.  Before  the  ideal  of  a 
God  thus  conceived  man’s  reason  inevitably  faints  and 
fails.  Now,  reason  never  quails  before  the  realization 
that  knowledge  is  inadequate,  that  there  is  more  to 
know  about  the  object  of  research  than  is,  or  apparently 
can  be,  known.  It  is  only  before  contradiction  that 
reason  quails,  and  thus  has  always  quailed  and  been 
unable  to  accept  the  God  of  an  ancient  and  final  revela¬ 
tion.  Thus,  as  pointed  out  in  the  second  chapter, 
irrational  opposition  of  good  and  evil  in  the  doctrinal 
God  fostered  the  idea  that  religious  truth  was  to  be 
found,  not  by  the  use  of  all  man’s  powers  working  upon 
the  problems  of  life,  but  chiefly  in  states  of  ecstasy 
or  divine  obsession,  causing  men  to  reverence  abnormal 
mental  conditions  and  to  undervalue  their  normal  and 
natural  powers.  With  the  Jews  of  this  period  reason 
seems  to  have  given  up  the  religious  problem  as  hope¬ 
less  :  they  had  no  religious  philosophy.  Religious 
emotion  and  the  imaginations  it  quickened  tended  to  be 
more  esteemed  than  sober  religious  thinking. 


God 

thought  of 
as  hostile 
to  human 
pity  for 
wicked 
men. 


Consolation 
only  to  be 
found  in 
unreasoning 
adoration. 


1  **  The  wish  that  of  the  living  whole 

No  life  may  fail  beyond  the  grave. 

Derives  it  not  from  what  we  have 
The  likest  God  within  the  soul  ?  " 

Tennyson,  In  Memoriam,  Ir. 


39 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


God’s 
friendship 
with  the 
righteous 
is  the  great 
Jewish 
contribu¬ 
tion  to  the 
world’s 
thought. 


A 


With  such  inconsistency  in  his  God,  if  man  is  to  be 
truly  religious  it  must  be  by  exercising  his  affections  and 
imagination  upon  the  only  attributes  of  this  complex 
and  inconsistent  God  that  do  not  contradict  human 
values.  That  is  precisely  what  the  best  of  the  Jews 
did,  what  the  saints  of  every  religion  founded  on  an 
ancient  and  closed  revelation  must  do,  with  the  result 
that  emotion  is  supposed  to  find  God  where  reason  can 
produce  only  scepticism. 

The  books  of  our  period  give  us  many  examples  of 
this  outgoing  of  the  heart  of  the  Jew  to  all  that  he 
recognized  as  wholly  good  in  the  divine  character. 
These  books  taught  that  God  loved  the  Jew  who 
obeyed  Him  ;  His  mercy  was  over  all  who  feared  Him  ; 
His  compassion  surrounded  all  men,  even  the  unrigh¬ 
teous,  while  as  yet  there  was  any  hope  of  their  repent¬ 
ance.  These  traits  in  God’s  character  the  good  Jew 
could  understand  and  adore  ;  and  his  understanding 
and  adoration  of  God’s  love  have  been  the  chief  tribu¬ 
tary  of  the  river  of  the  water  of  life  which  has  flowed 
through  all  human  generations  since  man  first  became 
conscious  of  the  unseen  Presence  whose  name  is  Love. 

Many  of  the  Psalms  are  well-known  instances  of  this 
conscious  love  and  adoration.  Psa.  cxix.  is  typical  of 
our  period.  In  Job  we  find  the  inscrutable  doctrine 
that  all  evils  are  due  to  the  direct  fiat  of  a  good  God, 
troubling  a  mind  which  only  finds  escape  in  unreasoning 
adoration  of  God’s  creative  power.  These  and  other 
instances  in  our  Old  Testament  are  too  well  known 
to  quote.  From  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  we  cite  one  or 
two  beautiful  expressions  of  the  love  of  God,  to  be 
found  in  the  midst  of  much  about  law-breakers  and 
their  punishment : 


40 


PROBLEM  OF  GOD’S  LOVE  AND  CRUELTY 


>  “  But  Thou,  our  God,  art  loving  and  true, 

'l  Long-suffering  and  in  mercy  ordering  all  things. 

For  even  if  we  sin,  we  are  Thine,  knowing  Thy  strength  ; » 
But  we  shall  not  sin,  knowing  that  we  are  accounted  Thine. 
,  For  to  know  Thee  is  perfect  righteousness,  * 

And  to  know  Thy  power  is  the  root  of  immortality.” 

Wisdom  of  Solomon ,  xv.  1-3. 

This  is  an  apostrophe  to  Wisdom  : 

z  r"  '  s  -  v,  ** 

“  For  there  is  in  her  a  spirit  of  understanding,  holy, 
Sole-born,  manifold,  subtil, 

Mobile,  lucid,  unpolluted, 

Clear,  inviolable,  loving  goodness,  keen, 

Unhindered,  beneficent,  loving  towards  man, 

Steadfast,  sure,  free  from  care, 

All-powerful,  all-surveying, 

And  penetrating  through  all  spirits 

That  are  quick  of  understanding,  pure,  and  most  subtil. 

For  Wisdom  is  more  mobile  than  any  motion, 

Yea,  she  pervadeth  and  penetrateth  all  things  by  reason  of 
her  pureness. 

For  she  is  a  vapour  of  the  power  of  God, 

And  a  clear  effluence  of  the  glory  of  the  Almighty ; 
Therefore  nothing  defiled  findeth  entrance  into  her. 

For  she  is  a  reflection  from  the  everlasting  light, 

And  an  unspotted  mirror  of  the  working  of  God, 

And  the  image  of  His  goodness. 

•  ••••••• 

And  from  generation  to  generation  passing  into  h6ly  souls, 
She  maketh  men  friends  of  God  and  prophets.” 

Ibid.,  vii.  22^-27. 

In  the  following  beautiful  passages  in  the  Wisdom 
of  Ben-Sira  we  have  the  complex  emotions  of  worship 
grouped  under  the  ambiguous  word  “  fear  ”  : 

“  The  fear  of  the  Lord  is  glory  and  exultation, 

And  gladness  and  a  crown  of  joy. 

41 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


A  vision  of 
heaven. 


The  fear  of  the  Lord  delighteth  the  heart, 

And  giveth  gladness,  and  joy,  and  length  of  days. 

For  him  that  feareth  the  Lord  it  shall  be  well  at  the  last, 
And  in  the  day  of  his  death  he  shall  find  grace.” 

“  Ye  that  fear  the  Lord,  wait  for  His  mercy ; 

And  turn  not  aside  lest  ye  fall. 

Ye  that  fear  the  Lord,  put  your  trust  in  Him, 

And  your  reward  shall  not  fail. 

Ye  that  fear  the  Lord,  hope  for  good  things, 

And  for  eternal  gladness  and  mercy. 

Regard  the  generations  of  old,  and  see  : 

Who  ever  trusted  in  the  Lord,  and  was  put  to  shame  ? 
Or  who  did  abide  in  His  fear,  and  was  forsaken  ? 

Or  who  called  on  Him,  and  was  overlooked  ? 

For  the  Lord  is  compassionate  and  merciful. 

And  forgiveth  sins,  and  saveth  in  time  of  trouble.” 

Wisdom  of  Ben-Sir  a,  i.  11-13$  ii.  7-11. 

In  the  Apocalypse  of  Enoch ,  after  many  and  horrible 
visions  of  judgment,  we  get  this  beautiful  imaginative 
picture : 

“  And  he  translated  my  spirit  into  the  heaven  of  heavens, 
And  I  saw  there  as  it  were  a  structure  built  of  crystals, 
And,  between  those  crystals,  tongues  of  living  fire.  .  .  . 
And  I  saw  angels  who  could  not  be  counted, 

A  thousand  thousands,  and  ten  thousand  times  ten 
thousand, 

Encircling  that  house.  .  .  . 

And  they  came  forth  from  that  house, 

And  Michael  and  Gabriel,  Raphael  and  Phanuel, 

And  many  holy  angels  without  number. 

And  with  them  the  Head  of  Days, 

His  head  white  and  pure  as  wool, 

And  His  raiment  indescribable. 

And  I  fell  on  my  face, 

And  my  whole  body  became  relaxed, 

And  my  spirit  was  transfigured  ; 

42 


PROBLEM  OF  GOD’S  LOVE  AND  CRUELTY 


And  I  cried  with  a  loud  voice, 

.  .  .  with  the  spirit  of  power, 

And  blessed  and  glorified  and  extolled.” 

Book  of  Enoch ,  lxxi.  5,  8,  9-1 1. 

In  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch  f  after  the  seer  has  been 
instructed  concerning  the  destruction  of  all  sinners, 
this  passage  comes  as  an  escape  for  the  dismayed  heart : 


a 


And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  when  He  hath  brought  low 
everything  that  is  in  the  world, 

And  hath  sat  down  in  peace  for  the  age  on  the  throne  of 
His  kingdom, 

That  joy  shall  then  be  revealed, 

And  rest  appear ; 

And  then  healing  shall  descend  in  dew, 

And  disease  shall  withdraw, 

And  anxiety  and  anguish  and  lamentation  shall  pass  from 
among  men, 

And  gladness  shall  proceed  through  the  whole  earth.  .  .  . 

And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  those  days  that  the  reapers 
shall  not  grow  weary, 

Nor  those  that  build  be  toil  worn  ; 

For  the  works  shall  of  themselves  speedily  advance 

With  those  who  do  them  in  much  tranquillity.  .  .  • 

And  I  answered  and  said  : 

4  Who  can  understand,  O  Lord,  Thy  goodness  ? 

For  it  is  incomprehensible. 

Or  who  can  search  into  Thy  compassions, 

Which  are  infinite  ? 

Or  who  can  comprehend  Thy  intelligence  ? 

Or  who  is  able  to  recount  the  thought  of  Thy  mind  ? 

Or  who  of  those  that  are  born  can  hope  to  come  to  those 
things, 

Unless  he  is  one  to  whom  Thou  art  merciful  and  gracious?’” 
Apocalypse  of  Baruch ,  lxxiii.  I,  2  ;  lxxiv.  I  ;  lxxv.  1-5. 


But 

who  can 
hope  unless 
he  knows 
himself 
elected  to 
mercy  ? 


1  This  apocalypse,  although  written  after  the  ministry  of  Jesus, 
shows  the  continuity  of  ideas  from  200  b.c.  to  100  a.d. 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Distinction 
between 
punishment 
and  con¬ 
sequence. 


But,  after  all,  in  all  the  books  we  have  quoted  there  is 
little,  comparatively  very  little  indeed,  concerning  a 
pure  delight  in  God. 

The  law,  with  its  rich  and  reiterated  promises  of 
reward,  was  much  nearer  to  men,  and  on  that  law  all 
those  who  hoped  for  its  rewards  lavished  their  affection¬ 
ate  adoration. 

But  the  great  strength  of  Jewish  religion  was  the 
intensity  of  the  conviction  that  the  power  that  ruled 
the  world  was  personal.  In  personality,  defined  as  a 
self-conscious  centre  of  feeling,  reason  and  will,  the 
human  soul  instinctively  discovers  the  greatest  reality 
and  power  of  which  it  can  conceive.  Thus,  in  attri¬ 
buting  to  God  this  supreme  conception  of  reality,  a 
righteous  personality,  Judaism  made  its  great  contri¬ 
bution.  It  is  obvious,  however,  that  their  conception 
of  a  personal  God  must  rise  as  their  conception  of 
human  duty  became  more  civilized.  At  the  time  when 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  came  to  be  recognized 
as  a  final  revelation,  it  had  become  difficult  for  the  Jew 
to  love  whole-heartedly  a  character  in  whom  cruel 
vengeance  was  so  conspicuous. 

The  problem  was  closely  connected  with  the  con¬ 
fusion  between  punishment  and  consequence.1  Here 
we  need  only  to  mark  the  difference  between  them. 
Nature  deals  out  consequences,  never  punishments. 
Justice  as  interpreted  by  persons  deals  out  punish¬ 
ments.  The  universal  system  of  causation  has  no 
visible  moral  focus.  A  fireman  brought  from  a  burning 
house,  wrapped  in  his  fireman’s  coat,  a  child  unscathed  ; 
the  rescuer  suffered  months  of  agony.  Here  we  see 

1  The  problem  of  the  divine  will  in  relation  to  the  system  of  causa¬ 
tion  is  dealt  with  in  Chap.  xiii. 


44 


/ 


PROBLEM  OF  GOD’S  LOVE  AND  CRUELTY 


what  we  call  natural  consequence  :  we  cannot  call  it 
punishment.  If  a  schoolmaster  whips  a  boy  for  not 
knowing  his  lesson  we  do  not  call  it  natural  consequence, 
for  the  schoolmaster  might  have  done  something  else  ; 
we  call  it  punishment.  It  was  the  arbitrary  inflic¬ 
tion  of  punitive  torture  by  God  upon  His  enemies,  in 
a  supernatural  world,  which  the  Jewish  religion  of  our 
period  teaches. 

To-day  we  say,  what  would  be  the  character  of  any 
person  who  treated  disobedient  children  by  burning 
them  alive  for  ages  in  the  way  these  writers  represent 
God  as  treating  disobedient  Jews  ?  To-day  we  ask, 
what  would  be  the  character  of  a  conqueror  who, 
when  no  longer  afraid  of  his  victims,  kept  them  in  life¬ 
long  torture  chambers  ?  Such  torture  would  have  no 
utility,  as  the  victims  were  not  to  be  benefited  by  it, 
and  the  joy  of  the  conquerors  in  seeing  it  inflicted  could 
hardly  be  a  moral  benefit  to  them.  Faith  to-day 
insists  upon  the  goodness  of  God  in  defiance  of  tradi¬ 
tion  ;  but  to  the  Jewish  seer  no  such  argument  from 
human  values  was  valid  as  against  the  revealed  cruelty 
of  God  declared  in  their  sacred  writings,  and  so  they 

were  not  satisfied.  Some  of  the  extracts  that  follow 

. . 

indicate  that  had  they  felt  free  to  set  up  their  own 
value-judgment  as  against  these  sacred  writings  they 
would  have  taught  a  new  doctrine  of  God. 

These  are  the  more  important  because,  as  we  have 
seen,1  in  recent  years  some  eminent  religious  writers, 
impressed  with  the  prevalence  of  apocalyptic  thought 
at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era,  have  endeavoured 
to  explain  the  teaching  of  Jesus  on  the  hypothesis 
that  he  must  have  accepted  these  pious  beliefs  because 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


The  love  of 
God  for 
wicked 
Nineveh. 


no  fundamental  criticism  of  them  was  possible  to  a 
Jew  of  his  time.  So  far  from  this  being  the  case,  we 
can  show  literary  evidence  that  the  problems  raised  by 
the  deification  of  cruelty  had  long  perplexed  righteous 
Jews  and  even  the  apocalyptists  themselves. 

While  in  the  Old  Testament  there  are  many  passages 
in  which  whole  nations  that  have  oppressed  Israel 
are  doomed  by  God  to  final  impenitence  and  destruc¬ 
tion,  we  have  the  Book  of  Jonah ,  written  some  hundred 
years  before  our  period,  controverting  this  view.  In  an 
article  published  long  ago  in  the  Interpreter ,*  Dr 
Peake  pointed  out  the  magnificent  testimony  borne  by 
this  writer  to  the  contrast  between  God’s  tender  care 
for  all  His  sentient  creation  and  the  fanatical  cruelty 
of  the  Judaic  doctrine.  Jonah — the  personification  of 
Israel — desired  nothing  so  much  as  the  destruction  of 
Nineveh,  the  capital  of  that  Assyrian  Empire  which 
stood  as  the  most  unscrupulous  and  violent  of  ancient 
oppressors.  He  is  angry  at  the  repentance  and  sal¬ 
vation  of  the  Ninevites,  showing  that  he  had  none  of 
the  true  missionary  desire  for  the  salvation  of  the 
world. 

In  Dr  Peake’s  interpretation  of  the  parable  of  the 
gourd  we  read  : 

“  For  while  Jonah  had  no  part  in  the  creation  of  the  gourd, 
nay,  had  not  even  tended  its  growth,  each  inhabitant  of  Nineveh 
had  been  the  direct  creation  of  God’s  hand,  had  lived  in  His  love, 
had  grown  under  His  fostering  care.  If  the  whole  people  meant 
nothing  to  Jonah,  each  single  individual  meant  much  to  God.  If 
they  must  be  destroyed,  it  must  be  only  when  all  means  to  save 
them  had  been  tried,  and  in  spite  of  the  pang  God  felt  in  their 
death.  And  if  it  might  be  urged  that  the  Ninevites  had  sinned 
beyond  forgiveness,  yet  the  judgment  Jonah  longed  for  was 
1  Reprinted  in  Dr  Peake’s  Commentary  on  the  Bible. 

46 


PROBLEM  OF  GOD’S  LOVE  AND  CRUELTY 


utterly  indiscriminate.  In  that  city  there  were  more  than  six 
score  thousand  children,  who  had  not  come  to  years  of  moral 
discernment,  and  were  therefore  innocent  of  the  crimes  of 
Nineveh  against  humanity.  ‘  And  also  much  cattle,’  the 
author  adds  in  one  of  the  most  striking  phrases  of  the  book. 

It  was  possible  even  for  Paul  to  ask,  ‘  Is  it  for  the  oxen 
that  God  careth  ?  ’  But  this  writer  knows  of  a  pity  of 
God  from  which  even  the  cattle  of  the  Ninevites  were  not 
excluded.” 

This  doctrine  of  God’s  universal  love  and  care,  of 
His  universal  offer  of  the  gift  of  repentance,  is,  of  course, 
not  explicitly  at  variance  with  the  destruction  of  the 
finally  impenitent ;  but  it  is  at  variance  with  the 
spirit  of  God’s  vengeance  as  described  in  various 
visions  of  the  Last  Judgment,  and  with  much  apoca¬ 
lyptic  denunciation  of  heathen  as  worthless  and  without  Evangelical 
any  virtue.  In  the  Second  Isaiah  we  have  the  expres-  thereat  ** 
sion  of  the  evangelical  love  for  all  humanity  which  may  prophets, 
well  have  laid  the  foundation  for  the  great  parable  of 
Jonah.  The  mise  en  scene  of  the  lofty  debates  in  Job 
is  altogether  in  Edom  the  hated.  In  some  passages 
in  the  Psalms  we  get  the  same  sympathy  with  men  as 
men.  “  Thou,  Lord,  art  good  .  .  .  plenteous  in 
mercy  unto  all  them  that  call  upon  thee.  .  .  .  All 
nations  whom  thou  hast  made  shall  come  and  worship 
before  thee.”  1  In  Psa.  xcvi.  also  we  seem  to  get  a 
protest  against  the  destruction  of  the  world  so  often 
foretold.  a  Say  among  the  heathen,  the  Lord  reigneth. 

The  world  also  shall  be  established,  it  shall  not  be 
moved.  He  shall  judge  the  people  righteously.”  2 

InPsa.lxxxv.  we  have  a  clear  suggestionthatrighteous- 
ness  and  peace  ought  somehow  to  unite.  The  problem 
which  in  that  whole  period  divided  Jerusalem  into  two 

1  Psa.  lxxxvi.  5,  9.  2  Psa.  xcvi.  10. 


47 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Conflict 
between 
separatists 
and  godly 
Hellenizers. 


parties  was  whether  the  righteous  Jew  could  or  could 
not  give  the  kiss  of  peace  to  an  ungodly  world.  The 
popular  separatists,  who  denounced  all  but  themselves 
as  ungodly,  but  who  thus  succeeded  in  preserving  for 
the  world  a  higher  conception  of  divine  holiness  and 
human  duty  than  was  known  in  other  nations,  were  at 
enmity  with  the  world.  The  liberal  party,  who,  by 
their  international  outlook  and  sympathies,  might  have 
allowed  what  was  characteristic  in  the  Jewish  inspira¬ 
tion  to  be  lost  in  the  in-wash  of  Hellenic  speculation, 
proclaimed  the  virtues  of  charity  and  peace.  All 
thoughtful  men  were  asking,  how  was  it  possible  to 
think  of  God’s  personal  attitude  to  the  ungodly  and 
vicious  as  other  than  hostile  without  lowering  the 
divine  holiness,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  how  could 
God  be  merciful  and  condemn  the  multitudes  He 
had  created  ?  Neither  party  found  an  answer,  for 
both  accepted  the  same  revelation  ;  but  neither  was 
uncritical.  The  best  men  felt  a  haunting  desire  that 
mercy  might  unite  with  truth  even  in  judging  the 
impenitent  majority  ;  that  righteousness  might  make 
peace  with  sinful  multitudes.  The  apocalyptic  belief 
that  in  the  end  God’s  only  way  to  get  rid  of  sin  was  by 
the  extermination  of  unrepentant  sinners  from  the 
earth,  exactly  as  men  might  rid  themselves  of  the 
trouble  of  vermin,  was  certainly  not  uncriticized. 

In  the  Book  of  Enoch ,  in  which  we  get  the  earliest 
and  most  horrible  pictures  of  the  final  punishments 
God  visits  upon  fallen  angels  and  deluded  men,  we  have 
more  than  one  indication  that  the  author  of  such  a 
picture  realizes  that  the  punishment  would  be  unjust  if 
inflicted  by  anyone  but  God.  The  author — slaking  his 
own  thirst  for  revenge — evidently  delights  to  invent 

48 


PROBLEM  OF  GOD’S^  LOVE  AND  CRUELTY 


punishments  and  put  the  responsibility  on  God  ;  but 
the  artist  in  him  warns  him  that  he  cannot  carry 
the  sympathy  of  his  readers  unless  he  admits  that  they 
do  not  appeal  to  the  sense  of  justice  in  any  being 
lower  than  God.  As  we  saw  in  Chapter  II.,  when  the 
torments  of  the  fallen  angels  are  announced,  these 
queer  beings  are  described  as  repenting  and  making 
supplication  to  God  for  mercy,  and  Enoch  is  moved  to 
write  out  their  petition  and  present  it  to  the  Most 
High.  The  petition  is  not  granted  :  God  is  implacable. 
The  artistic  effect  of  God’s  implacability  is  greatly 
heightened  by  the  fact  that  a  mere  man  like  Enoch  was 
moved  to  mercy.1  / 

Later  on  the  angels  who  have  not  fallen  see  their 
fallen  brethren  in  the  burning  valley.  They,  too, 
are  touched  with  pity  : 


“  And  on  that  day  Michael  answered  Raphael  and  said  : c  The  Conscious- 

power  of  the  spirit  transports  and  makes  me  tremble  because  nes?  the 
r  .  r  .  r  .  problem 

of  the  severity  of  the  judgment  of  the  secrets,  the  judgment  of  in  pre- 
the  angels  :  who  can  endure  the  severe  judgment  which  has  been  Christian 
executed,  and  before  which  they  melt  away  ?  ’  And  Michael 
answered  again,  and  said  to  Raphael,  4  Who  is  he  whose  heart 
is  not  softened  concerning  it,  and  whose  reins  are  not  troubled 
by  this  word  of  judgment  that  has  gone  forth  upon  them 
because  of  those  who  have  thus  led  them  out  ?  ’  And  it  came 
to  pass  when  he  stood  before  the  Lord  of  Spirits,  Michael  said 
thus  to  Raphael  :  6  I  will  not  take  their  part  under  the  eye  of 
the  Lord  ;  for  the  Lord  of  Spirits  has  been  angry  with  them.’  ” 

— Book  of  Enoch ,  lxviii.  2-4. 


Again,  in  later  books  where  the  horrors  of  God’s 
punishments — either  in  this  life  or  in  the  life  after 
death — are  described,  there  is  an  immediate  over¬ 
statement  of  the  iniquity  and  entire  worthlessness  of 

1  Book  of  Enoch,  xiii.  and  xiv, 

49  D 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


The  entire 
worthless¬ 
ness  of 
sinners 
justifies 
penal  fires. 


those  punished.  It  is  as  though  the  writer  were  con¬ 
scious  that  there  was  room  for  human  protest.  There 
are  many  examples  of  this. 

In  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon ,  when  the  writer  has  been 
teaching  that  the  ungodly,  however  they  may  enjoy 
themselves  on  earth,  will  be  punished  hereafter,  he 
at  once  goes  on  : 

“  Useless  are  their  labours, 

Unprofitable  their  works. 

Their  wives  are  foolish, 

And  evil  are  their  children  ; 

Accursed  is  their  generation.” 

Wisdom  of  Solomon ,  iii.  11-12. 

Such  sweeping  statements  about  any  class  of  heathen 
or  irreligious  people  belong  not  to  the  region  of  fact 
but  to  that  of  moral  theory  ;  and  here,  clearly,  the 
theory  of  the  entire  worthlessness  of  the  ungodly  is 
a  buttress — felt  to  be  needed — to  the  doctrine  of  their 
punishment  after  death.  In  later  chapters,  after 
depicting  the  torment  and  desolation  of  the  wicked,  the 
righteous  and  unrighteous  are  pictured  as  confronting 
one  another  in  the  Judgment ;  and  the  unrighteous  are 
described  as  themselves  confessing  to  the  entire  worth¬ 
lessness  of  their  former  lives  and  characters,  evidently 
in  order  to  forestall  natural  criticism  on  the  severity  of 
their  punishment. 

In  the  second  part  of  the  same  book,  when  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  punishment  was  not  to  the  fore,  we  get  a  loving 
appreciation  of  God  : 

“  Thou  lovest  all  things  that  exist,  and  abhorrest  nothing  that 
Thou  didst  make, 

For  Thou  wouldst  have  formed  nothing  if  Thou  didst  hate  it. 

50 


PROBLEM  OF  GOD’S  LOVE  AND  CRUELTY 

And  how  should  aught  have  endured  unless  Thou  didst  so  will? 

Or  how  could  that  be  preserved  which  was  not  called  by  Thee  ? 

But  Thou  sparest  all  things  for  they  are  Thine,  0  sovereign 
Lord  that  lovest  souls. 

For  Thine  incorruptible  spirit  is  in  all  things. 

Wherefore  them  that  err  Thou  dost  convince  little  by 
little,  .  .  . 

That  escaping  from  their  wickedness  they  may  believe  on 
Thee,  O  Lord.”-— Ibid.,  xi.  24~xii.  2. 

“  Thine  incorruptible  spirit  is  in  all  things,”  even 
in  “  them  that  err.”  That  is  a  very  different  view  of 
the  world  from  what  is  implied  in  the  worthlessness 
of  the  wicked  and  their  wives  and  children  from  genera¬ 
tion  to  generation.  No  sooner,  however,  has  the 
editor  inscribed  this  beautiful  passage  declaring  God’s 
universal  immanence  and  love,  than  he  sees  its  incon¬ 
gruity  with  the  accepted  doctrine  of  God’s  treatment 
of  sinners.  He  bethinks  himself  at  once  of  the  classic 
instance  of  God’s  command  to  his  forefathers  to  exter¬ 
minate  the  Canaanites.  He  at  once  begins  to  justify 
this  by  a  passage  declaring  them  to  have  been  guilty  of 
extraordinary  brutalities,  describing  their  most  horrid 
rites  without  admitting  a  redeeming  feature.  He 
enters  into  an  elaborate  statement  of  God’s  forbear¬ 
ance — how  He  sent  them  one  by  one  horrid  plagues, 
thus  warning  them  and  giving  them  time  to  repent, 
and  adds  that,  although  so  long-suffering,  God  was  not 
ignorant 

“  .  .  .  that  their  nature  by  birth  was  evil, 

And  their  wickedness  inborn, 

And  that  their  manner  of  thinking  would  in  no  wise  ever  be 
changed, 

For  it  was  a  seed  accursed  from  the  beginning.” 

Ibid.,  xii.  io- 1 1. 

5 1 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Quite  clearly  there  is  room  here  to  challenge  God’s 
justice,  and  the  writer  of  the  passage  is  conscious  that 
some  of  his  readers  will  challenge  it,  for  immediately 
he  apostrophizes  God,  saying  : 

“  Who  shall  say,  What  hast  Thou  done  ?  Or  who  shall 
oppose  Thy  judgment  ? 

Or  who  shall  accuse  Thee  for  the  destroyed  nations  which 
Thou  didst  create  ? 

Or  who  shall  come  before  Thee  as  the  avenger  of  un¬ 
righteous  men  ?  ” — Ibid.,  xii.  2. 


ledges  the 
riddle  of  a 
lost  world. 


That  last  is  a  great  question.  It  betrays  an  imagina¬ 
tive  grasp  of  the  situation  as  he  has  just  described  it. 
God  omnipotent,  the  creator  and  sustainer  of  all  men, 
who  has  of  His  own  will  set  them  “  in  the  midst  of  so 
many  and  great  dangers  that  they  cannot  always  stand 
The  Wisdom  upright,”  who  indeed  permits  them  to  be  so  “  accursed 
acknow”°W  L°m  the  beginning,”  so  born  in  wickedness  that  they 
cannot  turn  from  it,  at  the  same  time  visits  them  with 
torments  and  destroys  them  from  the  face  of  the  earth. 
Does  not  the  blood  and  the  misery  of  man  “  cry  aloud 
for  vengeance  ”  upon  God  ?  The  poet  seems,  as  it 
were,  to  sweep  the  universe  with  his  inquiring  glance. 
Who  is  able  to  challenge  God  ? 

So  the  answer  to  the  problem  of  God’s  cruelty  is 
merely  that  might  is  right,  that  weakness  may  not 
challenge  power.  God  is  all-powerful,  and  therefore 
He  must  be  just.  Shall  the  clay  complain  of  the 
potter  ?  This  old,  unsatisfactory  answer,  that  the 
potter  has  the  right  to  do  what  he  will  with  the 
clay,  is  the  only  answer  that  Judaism  ever  gave  to  the 
riddle  of  God’s  cruelty.  The  religious  Jew  also  held 
the  inspired  belief  that  God  was  compassionate  and 

52 


PROBLEM  OF  GOD’S  LOVE  AND  CRUELTY 


infinitely  patient ;  but  this  he  kept  in  another  com¬ 
partment  of  his  mind. 

In  the  Wisdom  of  Ben-Sir  a  we  have  a  book  written, 
Dr  Oesterley  tells  us,  “  to  combat  Hellenic  influences 
and  to  teach  Jewish  readers  how  they  should  live  in 
relation  to  God  and  His  law.”  It  is  thought  to  have 
been  written  about  the  beginning  of  the  second 
century  b.c.  The  writer  holds  strongly  that  rewards 
and  punishments  are  meted  out  by  God,  not  only  in 
this  life  but  in  the  next.  He  says  : 

“  Say  not,  ( I  sinned,  and  what  happened  unto  me  !  * 

For  the  Lord  is  long-suffering. 

Count  not  upon  forgiveness, 

By  adding  sin  to  sin. 

And  say  not.  ‘  His  mercies  are  great, 

He  will  forgive  the  multitude  of  my  sins 9 ; 

For  mercy  and  wrath  are  with  Him, 

And  upon  the  wicked  doth  His  anger  abide. 

Delay  not  to  turn  unto  Him, 

And  put  it  not  off  from  day  to  day  ; 

For  suddenly  doth  His  indignation  come  forth, 

And  in  the  time  of  vengeance  thou  wilt  perish. 

Trust  not  in  unrighteous  gains, 

For  they  profit  nothing  in  the  day  of  wrath.” 

Wisdom  of  Ben-Sir  a,  v.  4-8. 

Yet  this  doctrine  of  vengeance  does  not  appear  to 
satisfy  the  writer.  After  extolling  God’s  power,  which 
no  man  can  comprehend,  he  adds  : 

“  What  is  man,  and  what  profit  is  there  in  him  ? 

What  is  the  good  of  him,  and  what  the  evil  ? 

The  number  of  man’s  days 

Is  great  if  it  reach  an  hundred  years ; 

As  a  drop  of  water  from  the  sea,  or  as  a  grain  of  sand, 

So  are  man’s  few  years  in  the  eternal  day. 

53 


Man  is  a 
poor  thing 
to  excite 
divine 
wrath. 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Therefore  is  the  Lord  long-suffering  toward  them, 

And  poureth  out  His  mercy  upon  them. 

He  seeth  and  knoweth  that  their  end  is  evil, 

Therefore  doth  He  increase  His  forgiveness.” 

Ibid.,  xviii.  8-12. 

Later  on,  just  after  a  magnificent  passage  in  which  the 
forces  of  nature  are  described  as  God’s  instruments  for 
the  punishment  of  the  wicked,  we  get  this  reflection 
upon  the  hard  lot  of  humanity : 

“  Much  occupation  hath  God  allotted, 

And  heavy  is  the  yoke  on  the  sons  of  men  ; 

From  the  day  that  he  cometh  forth  from  his  mother’s  womb, 
Until  the  day  of  his  returning  to  the  mother  of  all  living. 
As  for  their  thoughts,  and  fear  of  heart, 

The  idea  of  their  expectation  is  the  day  of  death. 

From  him  that  sitteth  upon  a  throne  in  exaltation, 

To  him  that  sitteth  in  dust  and  ashes ; 

From  him  that  weareth  a  diadem  and  crown, 

To  him  that  weareth  a  garment  of  hair, 

There  is  but  anger  and  jealousy,  anxiety  and  fear, 

Terror  of  death,  strife  and  contention. 

And  when  he  resteth  upon  his  bed, 

The  sleep  of  night  doubleth  his  trouble. 

For  a  short  time  that  he  may  rest  for  a  moment,  he  is 
undisturbed, 

And  then  by  dreams  is  he  disturbed. 

He  is  troubled  by  the  vision  of  his  soul, 

He  is  like  a  fugitive  fleeing  before  the  pursuer.” 

Ibid.,  xl.  1-6. 

To  this  we  may  add  a  still  later  passage : 

“  Ah,  Death,  how  bitter  is  the  remembrance  of  thee 
To  him  that  liveth  in  peace  in  his  habitation  ; 

To  him  that  is  at  ease,  and  prospereth  in  all, 

And  that  still  hath  strength  to  enjoy  luxury. 

54 


PROBLEM  OF  GOD’S  LOVE  AND  CRUELTY 


Hail,  Death,  how  welcome  is  thy  decree 

To  a  luckless  man,  and  that  lacketh  strength, 

That  stumbleth  and  trippeth  in  everything, 

That  is  broken  and  hath  lost  hope.” 

Ibid.,  xli.  1-2. 

It  is  difficult  to  understand  how  any  man  who 
pitied  his  fellow-men  in  this  way  should  think  it  just 
that  their  Creator  should  visit  them  with  severe  retri¬ 
bution.  In  several  kindred  passages,  indeed,  we  almost 
see  a  doctrine  of  mere  natural  consequence  as  dogging 
the  acts  of  man  rather  than  the  further  punishments 
and  rewards  of  a  personal  God. 

The  Apocalypse  of  Baruch ,  though  written  after 
the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  is  believed  to  embody  some 
earlier  traditional  matter.  It  comes  in  the  un¬ 
broken  line  of  Jewish  eschatological  teaching,  and  is 
related  to  the  world  of  ideas  in  which  Jesus  Christ 
thought  and  worked  as  any  book  would  be  related  to  the 
ideas  of  a  period  forty  or  fifty  years  earlier.  Few 
periods  in  world  history  have  been  so  convulsive  as 
the  last  fifty  years  in  Western  Europe  ;  yet  the  young 
man  of  to-day  has  many  more  beliefs  in  common  than 
at  variance  with  the  youth  of  his  father’s  generation. 
The  very  contradictions  we  offer  to  the  notions  of  our 
fathers  grow  out  of  the  same  background  of  ideas. 
William  Penn  and  John  Bunyan,  in  the  last  quarter  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  wrote  out  of  a  background  of 
ideas  very  much  the  same  as  that  which  surrounded 
Milton’s  youth,  although  the  Commonwealth  and 
Restoration  and  the  popularizing  of  Galileo’s  dis¬ 
coveries,  had  intervened.  The  world  of  intellectual 
assumptions  and  imaginative  conceptions,  take  it  all  in 
all,  moves  very  slowly.  The  author  of  Baruch  wa6 

55 


Clearer 
expression 
of  the 
problem  in 
our  Lord’s 
century. 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Baruch  is 
more 
merciful 
than  God. 


probably  in  the  formative  period  of  his  early  manhood 
during  the  years  of  our  Lord’s  ministry.  There  is  no 
sign  that  he  was  influenced  by  that  ministry  ;  but  he 
represents  the  world  of  Judaic  ideas  in  which  our  Lord 
lived. 

In  this  book  the  criticism  of  what  was  received  as 
divine  justice,  although  very  timid,  becomes  explicit. 
What  strikes  us  is  the  modernity  of  this  criticism. 

The  author,  writing  ostensibly  of  a  long-past  period, 
is  really  discussing  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  which 
has  lately  occurred.  He  complains  to  God  that  it 
is  inconsistent  to  give  His  revelation  to  the  Jewish 
nation  and  then  destroy  the  nation.  He  asks  what 
advantage  it  will  be  to  God  if  the  divine  cultur  is 
wiped  out  from  the  world.1 

He  feels  assured  that  although  Jerusalem  has  been 
punished  by  God  for  her  sins,  and  Rome  now  triumphs, 
Rome  in  her  day,  as  Babylon  in  hers  and  as  all  wicked 
nations  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  will  be  visited  by  God’s 
penal  and  destructive  power.2 

But  soon  his  mind  recoils  from  this  wholesale  destruc¬ 
tion.  He  challenges  the  apocalyptic  tradition.  He 
is  more  merciful  than  his  God.  “  Those  who  have 
sinned  ” — i,e.  the  heathen — “  are  many,”  and  when 
these  are  destroyed  “  few  nations  ”  will  be  left  for  God 
to  admonish.  He  reflects  that,  even  if  the  righteous 
Jews  are  secure  of  final  good,  they  yet  suffer  much  in 
attaining  it,  and  that  the  righteous  are  few,  even 
among  the  Jews.  He  protests,  first,  that  it  was  not 
worth  while  creating  the  world  for  this  general  destruc¬ 
tion  of  heathen  nations,  and  secondly,  that  it  was  not 
worth  while  revealing  the  divine  law  to  the  Jews, 

1  Apocalypse  of  Baruch,  iii.  4-8;  v.  1.  2  Ibid.,  xii.  1-4;  xiii.  3-8. 

S6 


PROBLEM  OF  GOD’S  LOVE  AND  CRUELTY 

for  if  other  nations  suffer  for  oppressing  the  Jews,  the 
Jews  themselves  as  a  nation  suffer  the  same  fate  because 
they  despise  the  law.  What  advantage  was  it,  then,  to 
the  Jews  to  have  a  better  religion  ?  1 

Such  protests  appear  at  intervals  in  the  earlier  part 
of  the  book.  He  lays  them  all  most  candidly  before 
the  Almighty,  who  always  replies  that  both  the  heathen 
and  the  Jews  could  have  done  right  had  they  chosen  : 
having  done  wrong  they  ought  to  be  tormented. 

but  he 

protests,  precisely  as  the  modern  man  protests,  against 
an  exaggerated  view  of  human  responsibility. 

Baruch  says  to  God  : 

“  Be  not  therefore  wroth  with  man  ;  for  he  is  nothing. 

And  take  no  account  of  our  works.  For  what  are  we  ? 

For  lo  !  by  Thy  gift  do  we  come  into  the  world, 

And  wre  depart  not  of  our  own  will. 

For  we  said  not  to  our  parents,  4  Beget  us.’ 

What,  therefore,  is  our  strength  that  we  should  bear  Thy  ^ 
wrath  ?  ” 

Our  author  makes  God  answer : 


The  author  has  no  original  solution  to  offer, 


“  Thou  hast  prayed  simply,  O  Baruch, 

And  all  thy  words  have  been  heard. 

But  My  judgment  exacteth  its  own.  .  .  , 

For  the  Judge  shall  come  and  will  not  tarry, 

Because  each  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  knew  when  he 
was  committing  iniquity 

And  they  have  not  known  My  Law  by  reason  of  their  pride.” 

Apocalypse  of  Baruch ,  xlviii.  14-17,  25-26,  39-40. 


There  follows  a  description  from  the  mouth  of  God  Baruch 

of  what  will  happen  after  the  Great  Judgment,  and  ^yn^nded 

of  the  immortal  glories  of  those  who  have  kept  the  prospect 

1  of  doom. 

law  (whose  numbers  both  God  and  Baruch  have 


1  Ibid.,  xiv.  2-6. 

57 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


admitted  to  be  very  few)  ;  together  with  a  description 
of  the  just  torments  of  the  damned.1 

Baruch  replies  that  in  that  case  it  is  better  not  to 
weep  for  our  friends  when  they  die,  but  to  reserve  our 
tears  till  they  come  to  God’s  judgment : 

“  Why  therefore  again  do  we  mourn  for  those  who  die  ? 

Or  why  do  we  weep  for  those  who  depart  to  Sheol  ? 

Let  lamentations  be  reserved  for  the  beginning  of  that 
coming  torment, 

And  let  tears  be  laid  up  for  the  advent  of  the  destruction 
of  that  time.” — Ibid .,  lii.  2-3. 

There  is  no  answer  to  this,  even  in  heaven  ;  the 
remark  seems  to  pass  as  what  goes  without  saying. 

Baruch  gives  up  ;  he  accepts  the  inevitable  ;  he 
tries  to  become  enthusiastic  about  God’s  justice. 
But  even  then,  in  spite  of  humble  prayers  and  praises 
which  he  offers  to  God,  he  betrays  his  dissatisfaction  : 

“  And  when  I  was  pondering  on  these  things  and  the  like, 
lo  !  the  angel  Ramiel,  who  presideth  over  true  visions,  was  sent 
to  me,  and  he  said  unto  me:  ‘Why  doth  thy  heart  trouble  thee, 
Baruch,  and  why  doth  thy  thought  disturb  thee  ?  For  if  owing 
to  the  report  which  thou  hast  only  heard  of  judgment  thou  art 
so  moved,  what  wilt  thou  be  when  thou  shalt  see  it  manifestly 
with  thine  eyes  ?  And  if  with  the  expectation  wherewith 
thou  dost  expect  the  day  of  the  Mighty  One  thou  art  so  over¬ 
come,  what  wilt  thou  be  when  thou  shalt  come  to  its  advent  ? 
And,  if  at  the  word  of  the  announcement  of  the  torment  of 
those  who  have  done  foolishly  thou  art  so  wholly  distraught, 
how  much  more  when  the  event  will  reveal  marvellous  things  ? 
And  if  thou  hast  heard  tidings  of  the  good  and  evil  things  which 
are  then  coming,  and  art  grieved,  what  wilt  thou  be  when  thou 
shalt  behold  what  the  majesty  will  reveal,  which  will  convict  these 
and  cause  those  to  rejoice  ?  *  ”• — Ibid.,  lv.  3-8. 

The  Apocalypse  of  Ezra  appears  to  belong  to  the 

1  Ibid.,  1.,  li.  1. 

58 


PROBLEM  OF  GOD’S  LOVE  AND  CRUELTY 


same  period  as  Baruch,  though  edited  later.  This  book 

t 

begins  with  Salathiel’s  deliberate  accusation  of  God’s 
justice.  “  O  Lord,  my  Lord,  didst  Thou  not  speak 
from  the  beginning  (i.e.  in  the  creative  fiat)  and 
formedst  the  earth  Thyself  alone  !  (Responsibility  is 
thus  fixed  on  God.)  And  Thou  didst  command  the 
dust  and  it  gave  the  Adam  a  dead  body.  Thou  didst 
breathe  the  breath  of  life  into  him.  He  transgressed  Salathiel 
and  forthwith  Thou  didst  decree  upon  him  death.”  Q^cts 
But  before  Adam  died  he  had  started  humanity  on 
the  wrong  track.  “  Peoples  and  tribes  and  nations 
and  clans  without  number  ”  had  to  be  destroyed  in  the 
flood.  Noah,  however,  was  spared,  but  to  what  end  ? 

“  Children  and  peoples  and  many  multitudes  began 
again  to  be  ungodly.”  Abraham  was  chosen,  and  the 
law  given  to  Israel.  “  And  yet  ” — here  the  accusation 
reaches  its  bitter  point — “  Thou  didst  not  remove  from 
them  the  evil  heart  !  ”  “  Infirmity  remained  in 

them.”  “  The  law,  together  with  this  evil  root,” 
caused  the  Jews  to  be  sinners  and  the  nation  to  be 
destroyed.  Jerusalem  is  destroyed  ;  but  what  of  the 
sins  of  the  nations  that  have  triumphed  over  her  ? 

They  also  must  be  destroyed  by  divine  justice.  Then 
he  sums  up  :  “  When  have  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth 
not  sinned  before  Thee  ?  ”  u  Men  who  have  names  ” 

— i.e.  a  few  notable  saints — “  have  kept  Thy  command¬ 
ments,  but  a  virtuous  nation  Thou  shalt  not  find.”  1 

What  could  be  a  stronger  arraignment  of  Omnipo¬ 
tence  taking  vengeance  upon  human  sin  ? 

An  angel  called  Uriel  was  sent  to  convey  the  divine 
answer,  the  substance  of  which  is  simply  that  that 

1  Apocalypse  of  Ezra  ( Salathiel ),  iii.  4-5,  7-10,  12,  17,  19-20,  22,  27, 

35-36- 


59 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


is  God’s  way,  and  the  fact  that  it  does  not  commend 
itself  to  man  is  of  no  importance.  “  Is  it  possible  that 
one  who  is  corruptible  in  a  corruptible  world  should 
know  the  way  of  Him  who  is  incorruptible  ?  ”  1  To 
which  Salathiel  answers  :  “  It  would  have  been  better 
for  us  if  we  had  not  come  than,  having  come,  that  we 
should  live  in  sin  and  suffer,  and  know  not  why  we 
suffer.” 2  There  is  again  an  elaborate  answer,  the 
substance  of  which  is  again  that  what  is  of  earth 
cannot  understand  the  ways  of  heaven.  Salathiel  per¬ 
tinently  replies  :  “  Wherefore,  O  my  Lord,  hath  un¬ 
derstanding  been  given  me  for  thought  ?  I  have  not 
desired  to  ask  about  the  way  of  what  is  above,  but  about 
those  things  which  pass  over  us  daily,”  3  including  the 
judgments  of  God  upon  us  and  our  sins.  The  answer 
to  this,  given  in  a  somewhat  elaborate  dialogue  and 
vision,  is  simply  that  a  new  order  of  things,  a  new  age, 
will  come,  in  which  all  doubts  will  be  removed.  It  is 
clear,  however,  that  the  author  is  not  satisfied.  This  is 
seen  in  several  later  passages,  but  we  may  content  our¬ 
selves  with  one.  Salathiel  speaks  : 

“  And  I  answered  and  said:  Oh, what  hast  thou  done,  O  earth, 
that  these  have  been  born  from  thee  and  are  going  to  perdition  ! 
If  now  the  intelligence  is  from  the  dust  like  the  rest  of  creation, 
it  would  have  been  better  if  also  the  dust  had  not  been,  in 
order  that  the  intelligence  might  not  have  come  into  being 
from  thence.  Now,  however,  the  intelligence  groweth  with 
us  ;  and  on  this  account  we  are  tormented,  because  while  we 
know  it  we  are  perishing. 

Let  the  race  of  men  mourn, 

but  the  beasts  of  the  field  rejoice  ! 
let  all  who  are  born  lament, 

but  the  cattle  and  the  flock  exult ! 

1  Ibid.,  iv.  io-ii.  2  Ibid.,  iv.  12. 

60 


3  Ibid.,  iv.  22-23. 


PROBLEM  OF  GOD’S  LOVE  AND  CRUELTY 


For  it  is  far  better  for  them  than  for  us,  because  they  do  not 
expect  the  judgment,  neither  do  they  know  torture,  nor  hath 
life  after  death  been  promised  to  them.  For  what  do  we 
profit  that  we  live,  but  are  to  suffer  torment  ?  For  all  who 
are  born  are  defiled  with  sins,  and  are  full  of  iniquities.” — 
Ibid. ,  vii.  62-68. 

This  bitter  cry  came  out  of  the  very  world  of  thought 
in  which  Jesus  moved.  We  shall  need  to  inquire  later 
whether  he  also  acquiesced  in  this  doctrine  concerning 

God. 


CHAPTER  V 


Legal 
morality 
involves 
low  view  of 
humanity. 


THE  JEWISH  IDEA  OF  MAN 

We  turn  now  to  consider  the  contemporary  Jewish  con¬ 
ception  of  man.  The  general  problem  of  evil  was 
rendered  insoluble  for  the  Jew  by  the  legal  view  of 
virtue  as  consisting  in  comparative  innocenceT  They 
looked  for  that  innocence  which  involved  having 
striven  to  keep  the  law  from  the  youth  up,  or  at  least 
from  some  crisis  of  conscious  repentance.  Looking 
abroad  upon  humanity,  they  might,  with  St  Paul,2 
have  found  a  proportion  of  virtue  in  all  men,  for  there 
is  much  natural  virtue  in  men  who  are  also  evil  and 
unrepentant  ;  but  this  was  hidden  from  them. 

If  we  read  through  The  Book  of  Enoch ,  The  Wisdom 
of  Solomon ,  The  Wisdom  of  Ben-Sir  a,  The  Third  and 
Fourth  Books  of  the  Maccabees ,  The  Apocalypse  of  Ezra 
and  The  Apocalypse  of  Baruch ,  we  shall  not  find,  in 
any  of  them,  the  expression  of  the  least  doubt  con¬ 
cerning  the  doctrine  that  all  men  are  seen  by  God  as 
either  righteous  or  unrighteous,  godly  or  ungodly. 
It  is  certainly  acknowledged  that  before  the  final 
judgment  of  God  a  man  may  change  from  the  class  of 
the  unrighteous  to  the  class  of  the  righteous  by  such  a 

1  Innocence  is  a  negative  conception  of  virtue ;  the  imbecile  is 
innocent.  The  law-breaker  is  classed  as  evil  whatever  positive  virtues 
may  be  his. 

2  Romans  ii.  14-15. 


62 


THE  JEWISH  IDEA  OF  MAN 

repentance  as  will  mean  the  mending  of  his  ways. 
God  is  merciful,  and  will  meet  him  in  this  amendment ; 
but  this  does  not  alter  the  fact  that  at  any  given  time 
humanity  falls  into  two  classes.  This  doctrine  was 
accepted  as  a  revelation  given  in  the  law.  It  does  not 
seem  to  have  been  questioned. 

Many  Christian  theologians  have  also  accepted  this 
doctrine  as  revealed  ;  but  in  more  recent  times,  unlike 
the  Jews  of  the  apocalyptic  period,  they  have  spent 
much  ingenuity  in  harmonizing  it  with  the  obvious 
fact  that  all  men  are  mixed- — both  good  and  bad. 

We  are  so  accustomed  to  these  arguments  of  Christian 
apology  for  the  apocalyptic  division  of  humanity  that 
we  do  not  realize  how  inadequate  to  the  complexity  of 
human  nature  was  the  idea  of  man  in  the  minds  of 
Judaic  writers  who  could  accept,  without  apology,  the 
classification  of  all  men  into  good  and  evil,  saved  and 
lost.  Perhaps  we  find  in  the  baptism  of  John  the  first 
suggestion  that  some  outward  sign  or  symbol  was 
required  to  justify  a  division  between  the  absolutely 
saved  and  the  entirely  unsaved,  because  in  character 
men  were  not  thus  wholly  different. 

But  let  us  examine  the  conception  of  mankind 
expressed  in  the  quotations  in  the  preceding  chapters. 
In  these  we  find  that  (i)  all  idolaters — that  is,  the 
great  bulk  of  mankind  ;  (2)  all  nations  who  had  ever 
interfered  with  the  Jews ;  and  (3)  all  Jews  who  were 
indifferent  to  strict  observation  of  the  law,  are  classed 
as  meet  for  destruction.  Such  a  belief  could  only  rest 
upon  either  a  contemptuous  view  of  humanity  or  a 
superficial  view  of  righteousness  :  that  is  to  say, 
those  who  held  it  cannot  have  really  known  and  loved 
men  and  women  in  both  opposing  classes  or  they 

63 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Higher 
Greek 
idea  of 
humanity. 


Mr  Monte- 
fiore  on  the 
Jewish 
indifference 
to  the  soul 
of  good  in 
things  evil. 


would  have  realized  that  they  were  one  and  all  com¬ 
pact  both  of  good  and  evil ;  or  else  they  cannot  have 
realized  that  natural  goodness  of  heart  is  something 
more  fundamental  than  ritual  exactness.  They  allowed 
themselves  to  be  misled  by  the  notions  of  primitive 
taboo  or  the  legal  confusion  of  innocence  and  virtue. 

The  Hellenic  world  of  their  own  day  knew  better. 
Bishop  Butler,  in  the  Introduction  to  his  Sermons  on 
Human  Nature ,  tells  us  “  That  the  ancient  moralists 
had  some  inward  feeling  or  other,  which  they  chose  to 
express  in  this  manner,  that  man  is  born  to  virtue, 
that  it  consists  in  following  nature,  and  that  vice  is 
more  contrary  to  this  nature  than  tortures  or  death, 
their  works  in  our  hands  are  instances.”  This  ex-  , 
presses  what  Greek  philosophy  had  taught  the  world 
long  before  the  Jews  of  this  period  made  their  vehement 
classification.  The  doctrine  that  there  is  in  man  one 
principle  of  virtue  which  is  more  truly  one  with  the 
self  and  centre  than  the  various  tendencies  to  evil 
which  are  all  at  variance  with  one  another,  was  common 
in  the  prevalent  Hellenic  culture.  The  Apocalyptists, 
therefore,  held  their  belief  that  man  was  naturally 
worthless,  in  face  of  a  higher  truth — for  in  their  day 
they  had  much  traffic  with  Hellenic  civilization. 

Mr  Claude  Montefiore,  in  an  article  already  quoted 
upon  “  Jewish  Religion  of  the  First  Century,”  says  : 

“  The  difference  between  the  religious,  spiritual  and  ethical 
monotheism  of  the  Jews  and  all  surrounding  6  idolatries  ’ 
was  in  fact  gigantic,  though  it  was  perhaps  still  more  gigantic 
in  the  eyes  of  the  Jews  themselves.  They  heard  and  saw  what 
was  grossest  and  most  outward  in  other  religions  :  of  any  in¬ 
ward  verities,  of  any  esoteric  excellences,  of  the  spiritual 
achievements  of  the  few,  they  knew  little  and  suspected  less. 

64 


THE  JEWISH  IDEA  OF  MAN 

Religion  was  so  real  and  deep  a  distinction  between  the  Jew 
and  the  non- Jew  that  it  tended  to  intoxicate  :  the  Jews  were  in 
the  right ;  the  rest  of  the  world  was  wrong.” 

This  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  impression  given 
by  the  Jewish  writings  which  we  are  reviewing.  It 
explains  the  belief  that  all  members  of  the  heathen 
world  could  be  classed  as  ungodly,  evil  and  unrigh¬ 
teous  ;  but  it  does  not  explain  the  entire  reprobation  of 
that  class  of  Jews — always  a  large  class — who  were  not 
living  in  strict  accordance  with  the  law. 

Mr  Montefiore  goes  on  to  say  : 

“  People  (of  Jewish  race)  who  had  fallen,  or  were  falling, 
away  from  the  ranks  of  those  who  honestly  sought  to  observe  the 
law,  were  neglected  and  shunned  by  the  Teachers  and  by  the 
law-abiding  Jews.  They  were  looked  down  upon  and  disliked 
as  ignorant,  as  law-breakers,  as  unclean.  And  it  was  a  marked 
weakness  of  this  legal  religion  that,  while  it  taught,  and  its 
votaries  practised,  compassion  to  the  poor  and  the  afflicted, 
if  they  sought  to  obey  the  law,  it  did  not  teach  redemptive 
compassion  and  kindness  to  those  who  fell  away.” 

He  might  have  added  that  the  acceptance  of  legal 
innocence  as  the  test  of  virtue  1  produced  entire  failure 
of  observation  and  reflection  on  the  part  of  Jewish 
teachers  and  writers  who  could  thus  believe  not  only 
the  heathen  but  their  own  brethren  to  be  wholly  bad. 

The  only  extant  explanation  of  this  obstinate  classi-  Judaic 
fication  into  righteous  and  unrighteous  is  given  in  of ^partfal00 
the  Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  :  virtue. 

“  If  the  soul  take  pleasure  in  the  good  inclination,  all  its 
actions  are  in  righteousness  ;  and  if  it  sin  it  straightway  re- 
penteth.  For,  having  its  thoughts  set  upon  righteousness,  and 

1  Cf.  “  For  whosoever  shall  keep  the  whole  law,  and  yet  offend  in 
one  point,  he  is  guilty  of  all." — James  ii.  io. 

65 


E 


Low  con¬ 
ception  of 
human 
nature 
shown  in 
estimate  of 
women. 


/ 

THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 

casting  away  wickedness,  it  straightway  overthroweth  the  evil, 
and  uprooteth  the  sin.  But  if  it  incline  to  the  evil  inclination, 
all  its  actions  are  in  wickedness,  and  it  driveth  away  the  good, 
and  cleaveth  to  the  evil,  and  is  ruled  by  Beliar  ;  even  though  it 
work  what  is  good,  he  perverteth  it  to  evil.” — Testaments  of  the 
Twelve  Patriarchs — Asher ,  i.  6-8. 

So  far  this  is  an  analysis  that  by  a  strict  definition  of 
“  incline  ”  might  be  correct ;  but  see  how  it  works 
out  : 

“  There  is  a  man  that  loveth  him  that  worketh  evil,  because 
he  would  prefer  even  to  die  in  evil  for  his  sake  ;  and  concerning 
this  it  is  clear  that  it  hath  two  aspects,  but  the  whole  is  an  evil 
work.  Though,  indeed,  he  have  love,  yet  is  he  wicked  who 
concealeth  what  is  evil  for  the  sake  of  the  good  name,  but  the 
end  of  the  action  tendeth  unto  evil.  Another  stealeth,  doeth 
unjustly,  plundereth,  defraudeth,  and  withal  pitieth  the  poor  : 
this  too  hath  a  twofold  aspect,  but  the  whole  is  evil.” — 
Ibid .,  ii.  3-5. 

The  passage  is  concluded  with  the  statement  that 
“  the  latter  ends  of  men  do  show  their  righteousness 
(or  unrighteousness)  when  (at  death)  they  meet  the 
angels  of  the  Lord  and  of  Satan.”  1  This  is  equivalent 
to  saying  that  whenever  death  may  find  a  man  he  is 
either  wholly  worthless  in  God’s  sight  or  fit  to  enjoy 
the  happiness  of  the  good.  It  is  not  necessary  further 
to  insist  that  this  involves  a  shallow  conception  by 
man  of  goodness  and  of  God  who  is  responsible  for  man. 

From  such  legal  morality  a  harsh  view  of  women 
might  be  expected.  A  good  wife — i.e.  one  useful  to 
man — is  certainly  admitted  to  be  “  from  the  Lord  *’  ; 
for  she  is  occasionally  mentioned  as  a  very  excellent 
adjunct  to  a  man’s  possessions ;  but  she  is  never 
mentioned  in  any  of  the  recurring  descriptions  of  the 

1  Ibid.,  vi.  4. 

66 


THE  JEWISH  IDEA  OF  MAN 

resurrection  of  the  elect.  This  can  hardly  be  for  lack 
of  power  to  produce  her  as  an  imaginative  detail.  In 
the  Book  of  Ezra ,  when  the  assembly  of  the  people 
have  been  made  to  put  away  their  heathen  wives, 
it  is  distinctly  stated  that  the  women  stood  up  with 
the  men  to  hear  the  law ;  and  in  the  Apocalypse  of 
Abraham  1  it  is  distinctly  said  that  “  a  great  multitude, 
men,  women  and  children,”  are  seen  in  a  terrestrial 
vision. 

Against  the  passages  in  which  women  are  recognized 
as  very  useful  indeed  to  men  when  they  are  good — i.e. 
silent,  diligent  and  not  at  all  jealous — we  get  many 
passages  in  which  they  are  mentioned  as  almost  alto¬ 
gether  vile.  In  the  first  place,  in  woman  is  the  root  of 
all  human  sin.  The  legend  of  Eve,  in  Genesis,  gives 
a  presentation  of  this  idea,  very  noble  and  refined 
compared  with  the  legend  of  the  fall  of  the  angels 
related  in  Enoch  and  in  the  Twelve  Patriarchs ,  and 
assumed  in  other  apocalypses,  but  only  referred  to 
in  Genesis.2  Without  quoting  these  we  proceed  to 
other  passages  which  are  the  more  significant  because 
there  is  never  any  effort  to  refute  them  in  any  of  these 
books : 

“  Evil  are  women,  my  children  ;  and  since  they  have  no 
power  or  strength  over  man,  they  use  wiles  by  outward  attrac¬ 
tions  that  they  may  draw  him  to  themselves ;  and  when 
they  cannot  bewitch  by  outward  attractions,  him  they  overcome 
by  craft.  Moreover,  concerning  them,  the  angel  of  the  Lord 
told  me,  and  taught  me,  that  women  are  overcome  by  the  spirit 
of  fornication  more  than  men,  and  in  their  heart  they  plot 
against  men.  .  .  .  Command  the  women  likewise  not  to  asso¬ 
ciate  with  men,  that  they  also  may  be  pure  in  mind.  For 
constant  meetings,  even  though  the  ungodly  deed  be  not 

1  Chapter  xxi.  2  Gen.  vi.  2,  4. 


Woman  a 
source  of 
evil. 


67 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


wrought,  are  to  them  an  irremediable  disease,  and  to  us  a 
destruction  of  Beliar  and  an  eternal  reproach.” — Testaments  of 
the  Twelve  Patriarchs — Reuben ,  v.  1-3  ;  vi.  2-4. 

“  The  angel  of  God  showed  me  that  for  ever  do  women  bear 
rule  over  king  and  beggar  alike.  And  from  the  king  they  take 
away  his  glory,  and  from  the  valiant  man  his  might,  and  from 
the  beggar  even  that  little  which  is  the  stay  of  his  poverty.” — 
Ibid. — Judah ,  xv.  5-6. 

In  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  there  is  much  said  con¬ 
cerning  the  conditions  under  which  man  may  acquire 
Wisdom,  and  the  character  of  those  to  whom  God  gives 
Wisdom  ;  but  there  is  not  the  slightest  suggestion  that 
a  woman  could  ever  obtain  Wisdom.  The  Wisdom  of 
Ben-Sir  a ,  Dr  Oesterley  tells  us,  “  gives  us  such  a  clear 
glimpse  of  the  social  conditions,  and  of  Jewish  life  of 
the  period  generally,”  as  no  other  book  does.  “  We 
get  details  of  home  life,  the  relations  between  husband 
and  wife  .  .  .  and  father  and  daughter.” 

Certainly  in  this  book  we  get  a  little  about  the  value 
of  a  wife,  if  she  be  beautiful,  dutiful  and  silent : 

“  A  woman  will  receive  any  man, 

But  one  daughter  is  better  than  another  daughter. 

The  beauty  of  a  woman  maketh  bright  the  countenance, 
And  excelleth  every  delight  of  the  eye. 

And  moreover,  if  there  be  in  her  a  gentle  tongue, 

Her  husband  is  not  from  among  the  sons  of  men. 

He  that  acquireth  a  wife  hath  the  highest  possession, 

A  helpmeet  for  him  and  a  pillar  of  support.” 

Wisdom  of  Ben-Sir  a,  xxxvi.  21-24. 

Here  is  even  a  higher  form  of  appreciation  : 

“  The  grace  of  a  wife  delighteth  her  husband, 

And  her  understanding  fatteneth  his  bones. 

A  silent  woman  is  a  gift  from  the  Lord, 

And  a  well-instructed  soul  is  beyond  worth.” 

Ibid.,  xxv i.  13-14. 


68 


THE  JEWISH  IDEA  OF  MAN 

But  we  get  much  more  about  the  faults  of  women  : 

“  Any  wound,  only  not  a  heart-wound  ! 

Any  wickedness,  only  not  the  wickedness  of  a 
woman  !  .  .  . 

There  is  no  poison  above  the  poison  of  a  serpent, 

And  there  is  no  wrath  above  the  wrath  of  a  woman. 

I  would  rather  dwell  with  a  lion  and  a  dragon, 

Than  keep  house  with  a  wicked  woman. 

The  wickedness  of  a  woman  maketh  black  her  look, 

And  darkeneth  her  countenance  like  a  bear’s. 

In  the  midst  of  his  friends  her  husband  sitteth, 

And  involuntarily  he  sigheth  bitterly. 

There  is  little  malice  like  the  malice  of  a  woman, 

May  the  lot  of  the  wicked  fall  upon  her. 

As  a  sandy  ascent  to  the  feet  of  the  aged, 

So  is  a  woman  of  tongue  to  a  quiet  man.  •  .  • 

From  a  woman  did  sin  originate, 

And  because  of  her  we  all  must  die. 

Give  not  water  an  outlet, 

Nor  power  to  a  wicked  woman. 

If  she  go  not  as  thou  would  have  her 
Cut  her  off  from  thy  flesh.  .  .  . 

Grief  of  heart  and  sorrow  is  a  wife  jealous  of  another  ; 

The  scourge  of  the  tongue  communicating  to  all. 

Like  a  yoke  of  oxen  shaken  to  and  fro  is  a  wicked 
woman, 

He  that  taketh  hold  of  her  is  as  one  grasping  a 
scorpion.” — Ibid.,xxv.  13,  15-20,  24-26;  xxvi.  6-7. 

“  Shame  to  the  father  that  begetteth  an  uninstructed  son, 
And  a  daughter  is  born  to  his  loss.” — Ibid.,  xxii.  3. 

“  A  daughter  is  to  a  father  a  deceptive  treasure, 

And  the  care  of  her  putteth  away  sleep  ; 

In  her  youth  lest  she  commit  adultery, 

And  when  she  is  married  lest  she  be  hated  ;  .  .  • 

Keep  a  strict  watch  over  a  headstrong  daughter 
Lest  she  make  thee  a  laughing-stock. 

69 


Servants 

mere 

chattels. 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 

In  the  place  where  she  abideth  let  there  be  no  lattice, 

And  in  the  house  where  she  sleepeth  no  entry  round 
about. 

Let  her  not  display  her  beauty  before  any  man, 

And  in  the  house  of  wTomen  let  her  not  gossip  ; 

For  from  the  garment  cometh  forth  the  moth, 

And  from  a  woman  a  woman’s  wickedness. 

Better  the  wickedness  of  a  man  than  the  goodness  of  a 
woman.” — Ibid.,  xlii.  9,  11-14. 

In  this  whole  book,  which,  we  are  told,  reveals  the 
domestic  heart  of  Judaism,  nothing  good  is  said  of  a 
woman  except  as  she  is  of  value  to  husband  or  father  ; 
and  there  is  a  great  deal  said  about  her  frequent  lack 
of  value  in  these  relations.  When  women,  considered 
merely  qua  woman,  is  spoken  of,  she  is  referred  to  as  evil. 

In  the  Fourth  Book  of  Maccabees  the  mother  of  the 
seven  martyrs  stands  out  a  heroic  figure.  About  this 
Mr  Emmet,  in  his  Introduction  to  the  S.P.C.K.  edition, 
remarks : 

“  The  point  throughout  is  not  the  greatness  but  the  weakness 
of  womanhood.  Reason  triumphs  even  in  her  ;  it  might  natur¬ 
ally  have  been  expected  that  it  should  fail ;  and  the  fact  that 
it  did  not  is  a  tribute  to  the  power  of  reason  rather  than  to 
the  strength  of  woman.  The  closing  chapter  really  supports 
the  common  view  of  the  superiority  of  man.  For  the  mother 
quotes  the  teaching  of  the  father  throughout.  The  story  has 
made  it  impossible  to  introduce  him  directly,  but  in  this  rather 
roundabout  way  it  is  made  clear  that  the  heroism  of  the  seven 
sons  and  of  the  mother  is  due  to  the  man’s  influence.  The 
boast  of  the  mother  is  that  she  has  confined  herself  to  what  were 
regarded  as  the  essentially  feminine  duties  of  preserving  her 
chastity  and  looking  after  the  home  in  humility  and  subjection.” 

Another  indication  in  Ben-Sira  of  the  estimate  of 
human  beings  qua  human  is  furnished  by  the  advice  as 

70 


THE  JEWISH  IDEA  OF  MAN 

to  the  right  treatment  of  servants ;  in  which  self- 
interest  appears  the  only  principle  of  action  : 

cc  Fodder,  and  a  stick,  and  burdens,  for  an  ass ; 

Bread,  and  chastisement,  and  work,  for  a  servant. 

Set  thy  servant  to  work,  and  thou  wilt  find  rest, 

Leave  his  hands  idle,  and  he  will  seek  liberty. 

Yoke  and  a  thong  will  subdue  the  neck, 

And  for  an  evil  servant  there  are  racks  and  tortures.  .  .  . 

Set  him  to  such  works  as  are  suited  for  him, 

And  if  he  obey  not  make  his  fetters  heavy. 

Be  not  excessive  toward  any  creature, 

And  do  nothing  without  judgment.” 

Consideration  is  specially  enjoined  because  it  would 
be  awkward  to  wait  on  oneself  : 

“  If  thou  hast  but  one  servant,  treat  him  as  thyself, 

For  as  thine  own  soul  thou  hast  need  of  him  ; 

If  thou  maltreat  him,  and  he  depart  and  run  away, 

On  what  way  wilt  thou  seek  him  ?  ” 

Ibid.,  xxxiii.  24-26,  28-31. 

We  get  thus,  in  the  books  of  this  period,  a  concep¬ 
tion  of  humanity  which  contains  an  extraordinary  con¬ 
tradiction.  A  few  human  beings,  always  assumed  to  be  Funda- 

..  Tiii  •  it  mental  con 

masculine,  were  thought  able  to  attain  to  sublime  tradiction 

friendship  and  intelligent  communion  with  the  Most  i^ea^man 
High  God.  On  the  other  hand,  the  great  majority 
of  mankind  were  regarded  as  literally  worthless, 
born  only  to  be  destroyed  in  the  judgment  of  God. 

Women,  who  form  half  mankind,  who  are  the  mothers 
of  all  men,  were  thought  of  without  respect ;  and 
servants  and  slaves  were  regarded  as  chattels. 

Now  the  low  estimate  of  women  is  significant  in  a 
nation  which  rose  above  surrounding  nations  in  its 
thought  of  the  height  to  which  good  men  could  attain. 

71 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Women  have  always  had  an  instinctive  perception  of 
what  modern  psychology  has  made  plain,  that  humanity 
is  governed  by  attraction,  not  compulsion.  Probably, 
without  knowing  why,  the  Jewish  women  took  little 
interest  in  the  thunders  of  the  law.  It  may  be  that 
only  in  a  religion  that  preaches  the  attraction  of 
Infinite  Love  do  women  become  saints. 

The  same,  for  another  reason,  may  be  said  of  the 
average  serf  or  slave.  He  is  too  hard-worked  to  repent, 
too  much  accustomed  to  ill-treatment  to  care  whether 
God  ill-treats  him  or  not. 


72 


CHAPTER  VI 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  INADEQUATE  SALVATION 

Even  if  man’s  worthlessness  in  Jewish  thought  justified 
a  final  and  wholesale  destruction,  there  still  remained 
the  problem  of  God’s  failure  to  manage  His  creation. 

If  God  created  the  world  and  sustains  it,  He  is 
responsible  for  man’s  existence  and  his  environment. 
The  Jew  of  our  period  did  not  question  this.  He 
attributed  to  God  entire  authority  and  kingship  over 
men,  but  was  troubled  because  the  divine  authority 
and  kingship  had  proved  inadequate.  The  best  that 
God  could  do  was  to  show  man  what  was  right,  i.e. 
He  gave  man  a  revealed  law.  Further,  according  to 
Jewish  belief,  He  threatened,  punished  and,  in  the  last 
resort,  exterminated  from  the  earth  the  disobedient. 
But  all  this  was  ineffective.  The  world — with  the 
exception  of  a  few  comparatively  righteous  persons — 
went  wrong. 

This  lyric  neatly  sums  up  the  Judaic  view  of  the 
world  : 

“  Wisdom  went  forth  to  make  her  dwelling  among  the 
children  of  men, 

And  found  no  dwelling-place  : 

Wisdom  returned  to  her  place, 

And  took  her  seat  among  the  angels. 

73 


Human 

failure 

creates 

doubt  of  the 

Creator’s 

success. 


The  per¬ 
dition  of 
nations. 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 

And  Unrighteousness  went  forth  from  her  chambers  : 

Whom  she  sought  not  she  found, 

And  dwelt  with  them, 

As  rain  in  a  desert, 

And  dew  on  a  thirsty  land.” — Book  of  Enoch ,  xlii.  2,  3. 

In  that  part  of  the  Book  of  Enoch  attributed  to  Noah 
we  read  : 

“  And  then  Michael,  Uriel,  Raphael,  and  Gabriel  looked 
down  from  heaven  and  saw  much  blood  being  shed  upon  the 
earth,  and  all  lawlessness  being  wrought  upon  the  earth.  And 
they  said  one  to  another:  ‘The  earth,  made  without  inhabitant, 
cries  the  voice  of  their  crying  up  to  the  gates  of  heaven.  And 
now  to  you,  the  holy  ones  of  heaven,  the  souls  of  men  make 
their  suit,  saying,  “  Bring  our  cause  before  the  Most  High.”  ’ 
And  they  said  to  the  Lord  of  the  ages  :  ‘  Lord  of  lords,  God 
of  gods,  King  of  kings  (and  God  of  the  ages),  the  throne  of 
Thy  glory  standeth  unto  all  the  generations  of  the  ages,  and 
Thy  name  holy  and  glorious  and  blessed  unto  all  the  ages  ! 
Thou  hast  made  all  things,  and  power  over  all  things  hast 
Thou  :  and  all  things  are  naked  and  open  in  Thy  sight,  and 
all  things  Thou  seest,  and  nothing  can  hide  itself  from 
Thee.  .  .  . 

And  now,  behold,  the  souls  of  those  who  have  died  are  crying 
and  making  their  suit  to  the  gates  of  heaven,  and  their  lamenta¬ 
tions  have  ascended  :  and  cannot  cease  because  of  the  lawless 
deeds  which  are  wrought  on  the  earth.  And  Thou  knowest 
all  things  before  they  come  to  pass,  and  Thou  seest  these  things 
and  Thou  dost  suffer  them,  and  Thou  dost  not  say  to  us  what 
we  are  to  do  to  them  in  regard  to  these.’” — Book  of  Enoch,  ix.  1-11. 

We  must  clearly  realize  that  these  Jews  had 
no  difficulty  in  believing  that  God  forgave  the 
repentant :  their  difficulty  was  that  so  few  sinners 
cared  to  repent. 

In  the  Apocalypse  of  Ezra  the  seer,  Salathiel,  com¬ 
plains  of  this  to  God  : 


74 


PROBLEM  OF  INADEQUATE  SALVATION 

“  Regard  not  the  follies  of  the  intrigues  of  the  ungodly,  .  .  . 

think  not  upon  those  that  have  behaved  themselves  badly 
before  thee,  .  .  . 

and  will  not  to  destroy  those  that  have  become  like  the 
cattle,  .  .  . 

and  be  not  angry  against  those  who  have  behaved  worse  than 
the  beasts.  .  .  . 

For  what  is  man  that  thou  shouldest  be  so  angry  with  him, 

or  a  corruptible  race  that  thou  shouldest  be  so  hot  against  it?” 

— Apocalypse  of  Ezra ,  viii.  27-34. 

God  answers  him  : 

“  As  the  husbandman  who  soweth  many  seeds  and  planteth 
many  plants,  but  not  all  the  seeds  live  in  due  season,  nor  indeed 
do  all  the  plants  strike  root ;  so  also  they  who  have  come  into 
the  world  do  not  all  live”  (i.e.  “are  not  all  saved”). — Ibid., 
viii.  41. 

To  which  the  seer  replies : 

“  But  man  who  hath  been  fashioned  by  thine  own  hands  and 
is  made  like  thine  own  image,  for  whose  sake  thou  hast  created 
all — hast  thou  likened  him  to  the  seed  of  the  husbandman  ? 
No  !  ” — Ibid.,  viii.  44. 

God  then  severely  tells  him  to  give  up  troubling 
about  the  lot  of  the  wicked  and  to  contemplate  only 
the  happy  lot  of  the  righteous,  for  : 

“  Now  that  men  have  been  created  upon  the  world  that 
standeth  firm,  and  upon  a  table  that  lacketh  not,  and  upon  a 
Law  that  is  unsearchable,  they  are  become  corrupt  in  their 
deeds, 

and  I  regarded  my  world,  and  lo  !  it  was  lost ! 
and  my  cosmos,  and  lo  !  it  was  in  peril — 
on  account  of  the  manners  of  its  inhabitants. 

And  I  saw  and  spared  a  small  few,  and  saved  me  a  grape  out 
of  a  cluster,  and  a  plant  out  of  a  great  forest.  Let  the  multi¬ 
tude,  therefore,  perish  because  it  hath  come  into  being  in 
vain.” — Ibid.,  ix.  19-22. 


75 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


The  obvious  answer  to  this,  which  the  human  heart 
must  always  give,  is  that  if  in  the  heart  of  man  there  is 
no  knowledge  of  what  is  right  or  wrong  it  is  unjust 
of  God  to  condemn  him  ;  and  if  man  does  know  what  is 
right  and  wrong  he  knows  that  God  is  unjust.  Further, 
the  logic  of  these  apocalyptic  seers  drove  them  to 
perceive  that  if  God  had  set  Himself  to  make  men  good 
by  offers  of  reward  and  threats  of  punishment  or  else 
quickly  destroy  them,  then,  if  badness  prevailed  in  the 
world,  God’s  purpose  in  creation  had  surely  failed. 
They  were  too  reverent  to  more  than  hint  at  the 
inevitable  conclusions — God  was  unjust ;  God  Him¬ 
self  had  failed.  They  did  not  dream  that  their 
premisses  might  be  false. 

Salathiel  thus  broods  over  humanity  on  the  scrap- 
heap  : 

“  But  ask  the  earth,  and  she  shall  tell  thee  ;  because  she  is 
bound  to  mourn  .  .  because  many  are  they  who  have  come 
into  being  upon  her,  and  from  the  beginning  all  who  have 
come  into  being  upon  her,  and  the  others  who  (are  to)  come, 
lo  !  they  all  go  to  perdition,  and  their  multitude  is  for  destruc¬ 
tion.” — Ibid.,  x.  9,  io. 

Again  he  complains  that  the  divine  and  glorious  law 
has  only  condemned  men  to  perdition  : 

“  And  I  said  :  O  Lord  (my  Lord),  thou  didst  verily  reveal 
thyself  to  our  fathers  in  the  wilderness  .  .  .  and  thou  didst 
say  (to  them)  : 

Do  thou,  Israel,  hear  me, 

and,  seed  of  Jacob,  listen  to  my  words  ! 

For  behold,  I  sow  in  you  my  Law,  and  it  shall  produce  in 
you  fruits  of  righteousness,  and  ye  shall  be  glorified  in  it  for  ever. 
But  our  fathers  received  the  Law,  and  kept  it  not, 
and  commandments,  and  did  not  perform  them.  .  .  . 

7  6 


PROBLEM  OF  INADEQUATE  SALVATION 

And  this  is  the  rule  :  that  when  the  earth  receiveth  seed, 
or  the  sea  a  ship,  or  any  other  vessel  what  hath  been  put  therein, 
viz.  the  food,  or  what  hath  been  put,  or  what  hath  been  kept — 
these  are  destroyed,  but  these  that  received  them  remain. 

But  with  us  it  hath  not  been  so  ;  but  we  who  have  received  the 
Law  and  sin  perish  together  with  our  heart  which  accepted  it. 

Thy  Law,  however,  perisheth  not,  but  abideth  in  its  glory.” — 

Ibid .,  ix.  29-37. 

In  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch  the  seer  suggests  to 
God  that  if  men’s  lives  were  not  so  short  more  of  them 
might  seek  the  light.  The  conversation  is  a  reflection 
upon  God’s  power  to  save  : 

44  And  I  answered  and  said  :  4  O  Lord,  my  Lord,  lo  !  the 
years  of  this  time  are  few  and  evil,  and  who  is  able  in  his  little 
time  to  acquire  that  which  is  measureless  ?  5 

And  the  Lord  answered  and  said  unto  me  :  4  With  the  Most 
High  account  is  not  taken  of  much  time  nor  of  a  few  years. 

For  what  did  it  profit  Adam  that  he  lived  nine  hundred  and 
thirty  years,  and  transgressed  that  which  he  was  commanded  ? 

Or  wherein  did  Moses  suffer  loss  in  that  he  lived  only  one 
hundred  and  twenty  years,  and,  inasmuch  as  he  was  subject  to 
Him  Who  formed  him,  brought  the  Law  to  the  seed  of  Jacob, 
and  lighted  a  lamp  for  the  nation  of  Israel  ?  9 

And  I  answered  and  said  :  4  He  that  lighted  hath  taken 
from  the  light,  and  there  are  but  few  that  have  imitated  him. 

But  those  many  whom  He  hath  lighted  have  taken  from  the 
darkness  of  Adam,  and  have  not  rejoiced  in  the  light  of  the 
lamp.’  ” — Apocalypse  of  Baruch ,  xvi.-xviii. 

When  we  look  at  the  case  of  the  individual  unre-  Perdition 
pentant  sinner,  the  doctrine  that  instead  of  being  made  individual, 
right  he  must  in  some  way  be  got  rid  of,  is  as  bad  as  the 
same  doctrine  when  applied  to  multitudes.  If  it  is 
inefficient  for  a  potter  to  make  a  multitude  of  vessels 
that  cannot  resist  the  wear  to  which  they  must  be  put, 
it  is  inefficient  for  him  to  make  one  such  vessel.  If  it 

77 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


displays  weakness  in  a  king  to  send  an  army  on  an 
expedition  that  must  end  in  their  destruction  and 
disgrace,  it  would  be  a  sign  of  weakness  for  him  to 
send  one  soldier  on  such  an  errand.  If  it  would  show 
inefficiency  in  a  schoolmaster  for  him  to  set  his  school  a 
task  beyond  their  years  and  then  expel  them  all  for 
not  accomplishing  it,  it  would  be  a  mistake  for  him  to 
treat  one  pupil  in  that  way. 

The  seer,  in  this  same  apocalypse,  classing  himself 
with  the  sinful  Jew,  prays  thus : 

“  For  we  have  all  been  made  like  a  breath.  For  as  the 
breath  ascends  involuntarily,  and  again  dies,  so  it  is  with  the 
nature  of  men.  .  .  .  The  righteous  justly  hope  for  the  end, 
and  without  fear  depart  from  this  habitation,  because  they  have 
with  Thee  a  store  of  works  preserved  in  treasuries.  .  .  .  But 
as  for  us, — woe  to  us,  who  also  are  now  shamefully  entreated, 
and  at  that  time  (the  Judgment)  look  forward  only  to  evils.” 
— Ibid.,  xiv.  10-14. 

In  the  Apocalypse  of  Ezra ,  again,  we  get  a  strong 
protest  on  behalf  of  the  individual  unrepentant  sinner. 
The  Almighty  is  thus  addressed  : 

“  For  One  art  Thou,  and  one  fashioning  are  we,  the  work  of 
Thine  hands,  as  Thou  hast  said.  And  Thou  dost  indeed  quicken 
for  us  now  in  the  womb  the  body  which  Thou  hast  fashioned. 
.  .  .  And  when  the  womb  giveth  again  what  has  been  therein, 
Thou  hast  commanded  that  out  of  the  members  should  come 
milk,  the  fruit  of  the  breasts,  that  what  hath  been  fashioned 
may  grow  for  a  short  time.  And  afterwards 
Thou  guidest  it  in  Thy  mercy, 
and  nourishest  it  in  Thy  righteousness  ; 
and  disciplinest  it  in  Thy  law, 
and  admonishest  it  in  Thy  wisdom — 
and  Thou  killest  it  as  Thy  creature, 
and  quickenest  it  (in  the  Resurrection)  as  Thy  work. 

If,  then,  Thou  suddenly  and  quickly  destroyest  this  one  who 

78 


PROBLEM  OF  INADEQUATE  SALVATION 

hath  been  fashioned  with  all  this  great  labour,  according  to  Thy 
command,  for  what  purpose,  then,  came  he  into  being  .? 
Apocalypse  of  Ezra ,  viii.  7-14. 

The  problem  of  the  government  of  free  creatures  is 
very  old  and  very  universal.  It  is  expressed  in  the 
proverb,  “  One  man  can  lead  a  horse  to  the  river,  but 
twenty  men  cannot  make  him  drink.”  In  this  period 
no  higher  or  more  kingly  way  of  governing  had  been 
thought  of,  the  whole  world  over,  than  the  power  to 
threaten  and  punish. 

The  Jews  had  at  least  stated  the  problem  with  regard 
to  God’s  government.  They,  in  the  whole  world,  were 
the  only  nation  with  the  spiritual  insight  to  perceive 
that  threats  and  punishments  had  very  little  saving 
value.  More  than  this,  they  had  a  very  distinct  idea  of 
a  better  divine  government,  when  free  spirits  could  be 
given  power  to  be  righteous  without  loss  of  freedom. 
But  this,  they  realized,  could  not  be  until  the  regime  of 
threats  and  punishments  was  over.  In  this  they  were 
so  far  in  advance  of  even  Greek  philosophy  that  it 
would  seem  that  their  genius  for  prayer  and  mystic 
adoration  had  resulted  in  true  inspiration. 

“  I  will  put  my  law  in  their  inward  parts,  and  in 
their  heart  will  I  write  it ;  and  I  will  be  their  God,  and 
they  shall  be  my  people.” 

“  Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  O  God  ;  and  renew 
a  right  spirit  within  me.”  “  I  will  run  the  way 
of  thy  commandments,  when  thou  shalt  enlarge  my 
heart.”  2 

In  a  vision  of  that  future  Golden  Age  of  God  it  is 
said  : 

1  Jer.  xxxi.  33.  Cf.  Jer.  xxiv.  7  ;  xxxii.  40. 

2  Psa.  li.  10 ;  cxix.  32. 

79 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


u  For  wisdom  is  poured  out  like  water, 

And  glory  faileth  not  before  him  for  evermore. 

For  he  is  mighty  in  all  the  secrets  of  righteousness, 

And  unrighteousness  shall  disappear  as  a  shadow, 

And  have  no  continuance.” — Book  of  Enoch ,  xlix.  1-2. 

The  inward  compulsion  to  do  right  arising  from  the 
irresistible  attraction  of  goodness  is  always  shown  to 
be  a  mark  of  the  heavenly  kingdom.  It  was  therefore 
clearly  imagined  as  the  ideal  government : 

“  And  he  said  unto  me  : 

‘  He  proclaims  unto  thee  peace  in  the  name  of  the  world  to 
come  ; 

For  from  hence  has  proceeded  peace  since  the  creation  of  the 
world, 

And  so  shall  it  be  unto  thee  for  ever  and  for  ever  and  ever. 

And  all  shall  walk  in  his  ways,  since  righteousness  never 
forsakes  him  : 

With  him  will  be  their  dwelling-places,  and  with  him  their 
heritage, 

And  they  shall  not  be  separated  from  him  for  ever  and  ever 
and  ever. 

And  so  there  shall  be  length  of  days  with  that  Son  of  Man, 

And  the  righteous  shall  have  peace  and  an  upright  way, 

In  the  name  of  the  Lord  of  Spirits  for  ever  and  ever.’  ” 

Ibid.,  lxxi.  15-17. 

u  As  the  ruler  of  a  people  so  are  his  officers, 

And  as  the  head  of  a  city  so  are  the  inhabitants  thereof.” 

Wisdom  of  Ben-Sir  a,  x.  2. 

Of  the  works  of  God’s  creation  apart  from  man, 
Ben-Sira  writes : 

“  When  He  commandeth  them  they  rejoice, 

And  in  their  prescribed  task  they  rebel  not  against  Him. 

Therefore  from  the  beginning  I  stood  firm, 

And  when  I  had  considered  it  I  set  it  down  in  writing  : 

80 


PROBLEM  OF  INADEQUATE  SALVATION 

The  works  of  God  are  all  good, 

They  supply  every  need  in  its  season. 

None  may  say  :  This  is  worse  than  that, 

For  everything  showeth  its  strength  in  its  season.” 

Ibid.,  xxxix.  31-34. 

It  is  evident  that  if  this  could  be  said  of  God’s 
human  creation  God’s  power  would  be  more  glorious. 

Good  government  is  thus  described  : 

“  All  these  things  live  and  abide  for  ever, 

And  for  every  need  all  are  obedient  to  Him. 

All  things  are  different,  this  from  that, 

And  He  made  not  one  of  them  superfluous. 

One  thing  surpasseth  another  in  its  goodness, 

And  who  shall  be  satiated  in  beholding  their  beauty  ? 

•  •••••• 

For  His  own  sake  He  maketh  His  work  to  prosper, 

And  by  His  word  He  worketh  His  pleasure. 

Yet  more  things  like  these  we  will  not  add, 

And  the  end  of  the  matter  is  :  He  is  all. 

We  will  still  magnify,  though  we  cannot  fathom, 

For  greater  is  He  than  all  His  works.” 

Wisdom  of  Ben-Sir  a,  xlii.  23-25  ;  xliii.  26-28. 

They  had  no  idea  that  God  could  work  in  the  hearts 
of  the  unrepentant,  or  that  God  and  the  unrepentant 
could  meet  in  love. 

They  could  only  conclude  that  God  must  “  shatter  to 
bits  ”  this  “  sorry  scheme  of  things  entire,”  and  “  re¬ 
mould  it  nearer  to  the  heart’s  desire.”  With  their 
premisses  it  was  the  only  reasonable  conclusion. 


81 


F 


The  Narrative  concerning  John’s  Testimony 
to  Jesus  as  given  by  Luke,  the  Q  Passages 
in  italics. 

And  he  (John)  came  into  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan, 
preaching  the  baptism  of  repentance  unto  remission  of  sins  : 
as  it  is  written  in  the  book  of  the  words  of  Isaiah  the  prophet,  etc. 

He  said  therefore  to  the  multitudes  that  went  out  to  be  baptized 
of  him ,  Te  offspring  of  vipers ,  who  warned  you  to  flee  from  the 
wrath  to  come ?  Bring  forth  therefore  fruits  worthy  of  repentance , 
and  begin  not  to  say  within  yourselves ,  We  have  Abraham  to  our 
father  :  for  1  say  unto  you ,  that  God  is  able  of  these  stones  to  raise  up 
children  unto  Abraham .  And  even  now  is  the  axe  also  laid  unto 
the  root  of  the  trees  :  every  tree  therefore  that  bringeth  not  forth 
good  fruit  is  hewn  down ,  and  cast  into  the  fire. 

And  the  multitudes  asked  him,  saying,  What  then  must  we  do? 
And  he  answered  and  said  unto  them,  He  that  hath  two  coats 
let  him  impart  to  him  that  hath  none  ;  and  he  that  hath  food, 
let  him  do  likewise.  And  there  came  also  publicans  to  be  bap¬ 
tized,  and  they  said  unto  him,  Master,  what  must  we  do  ?  And 
he  said  unto  them,  Extort  no  more  than  that  which  is  appointed 
you.  And  soldiers  also  asked  him,  saying,  And  we,  what  must 
we  do  ?  And  he  said  unto  them,  Do  violence  to  no  man,  neither 
exact  anything  wrongfully  ;  and  be  content  with  your  wages. 
And  as  the  people  were  in  expectation,  and  all  men  reasoned  in 
their  hearts  concerning  John,  whether  haply  he  were  the  Christ ; 
John  answered,  saying  unto  them  all, 

I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  ;  but  there  cometh  he  that  is 
mightier  than  /,  the  latchet  of  whose  shoes  1  am  not  worthy  to  un¬ 
loose  :  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire  : 
whose  fan  is  in  his  hand ,  throughly  to  cleanse  his  threshing-floor ,  and 
to  gather  the  wheat  into  his  garner  ;  but  the  chaff  he  will  burn  up 
with  unquenchable  fire. 

With  many  other  exhortations  therefore  preached  he  good 
tidings  unto  the  people  ;  .  .  .  Now  it  came  to  pass,  when  all 
the  people  were  baptized,  that  Jesus  also  having  been  baptized, 
and  praying,  the  heaven  was  opened,  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
descended  in  a  bodily  form,  as  a  dove,  upon  him,  and  a  voice 
came  out  of  heaven,  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son  ;  in  thee  I  am 
well  pleased. — Luke  iii.  3-22. 


CHAPTER  VII 


JOHN  THE  BAPTIST 


John  the  Baptist  carried  on  the  apocalyptic  tradition  ; 
indeed,  he  harked  back  to  a  very  early  apocalyptic  con¬ 
ception  found  in  the  Book  of  Malachi. 

It  may  be  well  to  recall  some  of  the  words  of  Malachi  The 
and  compare  them  with  the  words  of  John,  and  see  MaiachiS  °* 
how  both  coincide  with  the  fiercer  strain  of  apocalyptic  and  Jolln 
teaching.  We  may  thus  realize  how  perfectly  the 
Baptist  joined  himself  to  his  forerunners.  The  point 
is  important  in  its  bearing  on  the  significance  of 
Christ. 

The  passages  in  Malachi  run  thus  : 


compared. 


(Jahveh  speaks)  “  Behold,  I  send  my  messenger,  and  he  shall 
prepare  my  way  before  me  :  the  Lord  in  whom  (ye  think  to) 
delight  shall  suddenly  come  to  his  temple.  .  .  .  But  who  may 
abide  the  day  of  his  coming,  and  who  shall  stand  when  he 
appeareth  ?  For  he  is  like  a  refiner’s  fire.  .  .  .  Then  shall  ye 
return  and  discern  between  the  righteous  and  the  wicked, 
between  him  that  serveth  God  and  him  that  serveth  him  not. 
For,  behold,  the  day  cometh,  it  burneth  as  an  oven;  and  all  the 
proud,  and  all  that  work  wickedness,  shall  be  stubble  ;  and  the 
day  that  cometh  shall  burn  them  up,  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts. 
(The  simile  here  is  the  old  clay  or  brick  oven,  in  which  the  fuel 
is  all  burned  up  before  the  bread  is  put  in.)  It  shall  leave  them 
neither  root  nor  branch.  But  unto  you  that  fear  my  name 
shall  the  sun  of  righteousness  arise  with  healing  in  his  wings ; 

83 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


and  ye  shall  go  forth  and  gambol  as  calves  of  the  stall,  and  ye 
shall  tread  down  the  wicked  ;  for  they  shall  be  as  ashes  under 
the  soles  of  your  feet  in  the  day  that  I  shall  do.” — Mai.  iii. 
i,  2,  18  ;  iv.  1-3. 

The  oldest  account  we  have  of  John  is  in  the  brief 
Q  passages1  embedded  in  the  narrativesof  bothMatthew 
and  Luke.2 

The  Q  passages  in  Luke  stand  thus : 

“  Then  said  he  (John)  to  the  multitude  that  came  forth  to  be 
baptized  of  him,  Ye  offspring  of  vipers,  who  warned  you  to 
flee  from  the  wrath  to  come  ?  Bring  forth  therefore  fruits 
worthy  of  repentance,  and  begin  not  to  say  within  yourselves, 
We  have  Abraham  to  our  father  :  for  I  say  unto  you,  that  God 
is  able  of  these  stones  to  raise  up  children  unto  Abraham. 
And  even  now  is  the  axe  laid  unto  the  root  of  the  trees :  every 
tree  therefore  that  bringeth  not  forth  good  fruit  is  hewn  down, 
and  cast  into  the  fire.”  .  .  .  “  John  answered,  saying  unto  them 
all,  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  ;  but  there  cometh  one 
that  is  mightier  than  I,  the  latchet  of  whose  shoes  I  am  not 
worthy  to  unloose  ;  he  shall  baptize  you  (with  the  Holy  Ghost 
and)  with  fire  :  whose  fan  is  in  his  hand,  throughly  to  cleanse 
his  threshing-floor,  and  to  gather  the  wheat  into  his  garner  ;  but 
the  chaff  he  will  burn  up  with  unquenchable  fire.”  3 — Luke  iii. 
7-9,  16-17. 

Later  Jesus  says  (also  a  Q  passage) : 

“  But  what  went  ye  out  to  see  ?  a  prophet  ?  Yea,  I  say 
unto  you,  and  much  more  than  a  prophet.  This  is  he  of  whom 
it  is  written,  Behold,  I  send  my  messenger  before  thy  face, 
who  shall  prepare  thy  way  before  thee.  I  say  unto  you, 
Among  them  that  are  born  of  women  there  is  none  greater  than 
John  :  yet  he  that  is  but  little  in  the  kingdom  of  God  is  greater 
than  he.” — Luke  vii.  26-28. 

1  “  Q  ”  is  the  technical  name  for  a  documentary  source  used  by 
both  Matthew  and  Luke. 

2  Cf.  Matt.  iii.  1-17  with  Luke  iii.  3-22. 

8  The  corresponding  Q  passages  in  Matthew  (chap.  iii.  7-12)  are  so 
nearly  the  same  that  we  need  not  quote  them. 

84 


JOHN  THE  BAPTIST 


It  should  be  observed  that  in  the  Introduction  to 
Mark’s  Gospel  the  quotation  from  Malachi,  misquoted 
in  the  words  attributed  to  Jesus  by  Matthew  and  Luke, 
is  credited  to  Isaiah  and  combined  with  the  passage 
from  Isa.  xl.  3,  “The  voice  of  one  crying,  Make  straight 
in  the  wilderness  the  way  of  the  Lord.”  Further,  in 
Mark  the  doom  of  fire  and  the  baptism  of  fire  are  left 
out,  and  only  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  left  in 
the  narrative.1  As  the  Jews  understood  the  fire  to 
be  wholly  destructive,  and  as  Christians  understood 
the  Holy  Ghost  to  be  an  influence  of  joy  and  comfort, 
they  are  alternative,  and  not  compatible,  prophecies : 
we  must  judge  which  we  will  accept  as  the  authentic 
word  of  the  Baptist. 

Our  contention  is  that  John,  carrying  on  the  tradi¬ 
tion  of  Malachi,  was,  like  him,  foretelling  a  destructive 
Agent  of  God  who  should  appear  on  a  day  of  doom. 
The  earliest  account  of  his  preaching  contains  no  sugges¬ 
tion  that  he  regarded  Jesus  as  this  Agent. 

In  all  the  references  to  John  in  the  Q  passages 
common  to  both  Matthew  and  Luke,  the  only  sugges¬ 
tion  that  he  heralded  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  is  made  by 
Jesus  in  the  passage  cited,  where  Jesus  is  represented  as 
misquoting  Malachi  in  speaking  to  the  multitude  about 
John.  “  This  is  he  of  whom  it  is  written,  Behold,  I 
send  my  messenger  before  thy  face,  who  shall  prepare 
thy  way  before  thee”  2 

In  Malachi  it  is  God  who  is  represented  as  speaking, 
and  the  text  runs:  “Behold,  I  send  my  messenger,  who 
shall  prepare  the  way  before  me.”  3 


Grounds  for 
doubting 
that  John 
announced 
the  ministry 
of  Jesus. 


1  Mark  i.  2-6.  Fire  was  the  symbol  of  destruction,  not  sanctifica¬ 
tion.  “The  Holy  Ghost"  was  a  Christian  term,  used  by  Mark  and 
supposed  to  be  an  intrusion  upon  John's  message  as  given  in  Q. 

2  Luke  vii.  27.  3  Mai.  iii.  I. 


85 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


It  is  important  here  to  observe  that  the  narrative 
as  it  now  stands  in  Matthew,  Mark  and  Luke  cannot 
with  true  reverence  be  accepted.  We  are  shut  up  to 
Obvious  one  of  four  explanations :  either  Jesus  misquoted 
inaccuracy  Malachi  out  of  ignorance — a  mistake  that  the  very  by¬ 
standers  would  have  detected  ;  or  he  parodied  Malachi 
to  advance  his  own  claims — an  obviously  absurd 
hypothesis ;  or  the  early  compilers  of  Q  put  into  his 
lips  words  he  did  not  say ;  or  the  words  of  Q  were 
altered  to  suit  a  later  and  mistaken  tradition.  It 
shows  no  true  respect  for  the  historicity  of  the  records 
we  have  to  withhold  full  investigation. 

We  will  here  assume  that  Jesus  quoted  the  text, 
and  quoted  it  correctly  ;  for  it  is  natural  enough  that  in 
the  mind  of  Jesus,  John  should  have  been  connected 
with  Malachi.  Knowing  the  Prophets,  Jesus  would 
know  that  John  took  upon  himself  the  “  burden  of 
Malachi,”  and  Jesus  might,  on  that  account,  regard 
him  as  preparing  the  hearts  of  many  for  further  revela¬ 
tion  of  God.  In  that  case  some  tradition  must  have 
early  altered  the  pronoun  to  make  it  appear  that 
Jesus  said  that  John  was  his  forerunner.1 
The  historic  From  the  Q  passages  it  would  seem  that  John  saw  all 
Baptist.  the  world  as  coloured  by  the  eschatological  teaching  of 
his  period  and  of  preceding  centuries.  We  have  the 
same  lurid  background — fear  urged  as  the  motive  of 
righteousness ;  the  vision  of  the  goodly  realm  of  heaven 
beyond,  almost  obscured  by  the  intervening  drama  of 
the  Judgment,  through  the  terrors  of  which  only  a  few, 
by  repentance  and  ritual  observance  and  good  works,  may 

1  The  argument  does  not  at  all  assume  that  Q  is  always  older  and 
more  correct  than  other  Sources,  but  in  this  narrative  Q  is  the  older 
and  the  more  consistent. 


86 


JOHN  THE  BAPTIST 

win  their  way.  The  fair  realm  is  seen  as  a  land  or  city 
drifting  nearer  as  upon  the  clouds,  and  before  it  flies  an 
all-powerful  Being,  an  Agent  of  God  in  whose  estima¬ 
tion  an  unreformed  humanity  is  worthless.  He  comes 
among  forests  of  living  men  like  a  giant  woodman  cut¬ 
ting  down  fruitless  trees  at  a  stroke  and  casting  them 
into  the  fire.  He  is  seen,  in  the  Resurrection,  among 
multitudes  of  prostrate  human  beings  destroyed  like 
crops  when  death  has  cut  them  down  as  the  reaper  cuts 
the  wheat ;  among  them  he  works  like  a  ruthless 
husbandman,  to  winnow  and  garner  and  burn,  and 
there  is  all  the  cruelty  of  a  vengeful  eschatological 
fantasy  in  that  finishing  touch,  “  with  unquenchable 
fire.”  Clearly,  the  symbol  of  this  fierce  and  majestic 
Angel  of  destruction  cannot  be  a  dove  !  To  meet 
him  is  a  baptism  of  fire :  yes,  but  hardly  a  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  as  exemplified  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 
This  both  superhuman  and  inhuman  Angel  of  the 
threshing-floor  and  the  unquenchable  fire,  whom  John 
foretold,  could  not,  at  the  time  of  John’s  preaching, 
have  been  a  rational  designation  of  the  man  Jesus, 
whose  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  figured  forth  by 
the  bird  that  represented  gentleness  and  peace.  John 
would  have  had  to  be  familiar  with  the  whole  system  of 
Church  Christology  to  have  so  mixed  his  symbolic 
images. 

Let  us  see  the  close  connection  between  the  Book  of 
Malachi  and  the  Baptist’s  preaching.  The  word 
“  Malachi  ”  itself  means  “  messenger,”  and  we  re¬ 
member  that  the  Baptist  calls  himself  “  a  messenger.” 
The  writer  of  the  Book  of  Malachi  is  filled  with  indigna¬ 
tion  at  the  sins  of  Israel;  Jahveh  is  represented  as  com¬ 
forting  the  righteous  remnant  in  Israel  by  immediate 

87 


The  Baptist 
takes  up 
the  burden 
of  Malachi. 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 

intervention  and  judgment  upon  the  wicked ;  and 
with  Malachi  the  “  day  of  the  Lord  ”  is  a  day  of  fire. 
The  Baptist’s  first  simile  for  the  sinners  of  Israel  is  the 
viper — “  the  most  secret  and  skulking  denizen  of  the 
desert,  that  would  only  come  into  the  open  to  escape 
the  peril  of  an  approaching  bush  fire.”  Again,  Malachi, 
instead  of  promising  Israel  a  triumph  over  other  nations 
in  the  day  of  judgment — as  earlier  prophets  had  done — 
insists  that  the  judgment  will  come  upon  disobedient: 
Israel.  He  contrasts  the  base  offerings  of  the  Hebrews 
to  God,  and  their  disobedience,  with  the  worship  of 
Gentiles  in  all  parts  of  the  world  (Mai.  i.  n).  John 
preaches  that  to  be  of  the  chosen  race  will  not  suffice 
to  enable  one  to  escape  the  doom  of  the  day  of  fire  ; 
and,  like  Malachi,  insists  that  a  radical  reformation  of 
life  is  necessary ;  God,  he  says,  could  turn  stones 
into  better  Jews.  The  judgment  of  Malachi  is  not  to 
be  a  mere  triumph  for  righteous  Israel  as  such  :  it  is  to 
be  “  as  a  refiner’s  fire  ”  for  the  sins  and  blemishes  of 
those  who  are  good  enough  to  be  saved,  and  a  destruc¬ 
tive  fire  for  the  wicked.  In  Mai.  iv.  1-3  it  is  said  that 
the  trees  are  to  be  burned  “  root  and  branch  ”  :  the 
Baptist  cries  that  “  the  axe  ”  of  judgment  “  is  even  now 
laid  to  the  root  of  the  trees  ”  that  are  to  be  cast  into 
the  fire.  The  agent  of  destruction  in  Malachi  (iii.  1-3) 
is  “  the  Lord  .  .  .  even  the  angel  of  the  covenant,” 
not  a  Messiah  or  saviour.  We  find  the  Baptist  an¬ 
nouncing  that  he  is  only  the  messenger  of  someone 
surpassingly  great,  who  will  baptize  Israel  with 
destroying  fire.  The  threshing-floor,  where  all  the 
wheat  is  winnowed,  corresponds  with  Malachi’s  con¬ 
ception  of  the  crucible  out  of  which  the  righteous  will 
emerge  untarnished.  The  chaff,  which  always  bulks 

88 


JOHN  THE  BAPTIST 

the  greater,  and  is  entirely  destroyed,  is  like  the 
stubble  thrown  into  Malachi’s  oven  or  furnace,  and 
afterwards  cast  out  as  ashes  to  be  trodden  under  foot.1 

We  cannot  doubt  that  the  Baptist,  in  seeking  to 
solve  the  problem  of  Israel’s  redemption,  took  up  the 
message  of  Malachi.  He  seems  to  have  adopted  a 
substantially  identical  view  of  the  character  of  God 
and  of  the  sins  of  his  own  generation — with  this 
difference,  that  the  strict  observance  of  the  ritual  law, 
which  the  Book  of  Malachi  preaches  as  the  only  way 
to  escape  destruction  in  that  day,  had,  by  the  time  of 
the  Baptist,  proved  inadequate,  so  John  preaches  a 
stricter  ethic  and  a  new  ritual  exaction — baptism. 

If  the  character  of  John’s  message  makes  it  difficult 
to  believe  he  was  foretelling  the  coming  of  Jesus  as 
Messiah,  the  historic  facts  concerning  John’s  end  go 
to  confirm  this  doubt. 

The  three  Synoptic  Gospels  all  agree  that  Herod 
imprisoned  John  at  or  soon  after  the  beginning  of  the 
public  ministry  of  Jesus ;  but  they  do  not  give  the 
proclamation  of  a  Messiah  as  the  reason  for  this  action 
of  Herod.  Further,  the  reason  Josephus  assigns  for  the 
murder  of  John — that  Herod  only  suspected  that 
John  might  in  the  future  make  some  seditious  move — 
does  not  corroborate  the  Evangelist’s  story  that  John 
made  a  definite  Messianic  prediction,  for  had  he  done 
so  and  named  anyone  as  the  deliverer  of  the  nation, 
it  would  have  been  a  sufficient  reason. 

Concerning  John  we  have  in  Josephus  a  brief  state¬ 
ment,  evidently  untouched  by  Christian  editors, 
as  follows :  “  John  was  a  good  man,  and  commanded 


1  On  many  of  these  points  I  am  indebted  privately  to  Dr  B.  W. 
Bacon. 

89 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


the  Jews  to  exercise  virtue,  both  as  to  righteousness 
toward  one  another,  and  piety  toward  God,  and 
so  come  to  baptism  ;  for  that  the  washing  would 
be  acceptable  to  him,  if  they  made  use  of  it,  not 
in  order  to  the  putting  away  of  some  sins,  but  for 
the  purification  of  the  body ;  supposing  still  that 
the  soul  was  thoroughly  purified  beforehand  by 
righteousness.”  1 

It  is  difficult  to  consider  the  whole  matter  candidly 
and  believe  either  that  John  heralded  the  ministry  of 
Jesus  or  that  Jesus  regarded  himself  as  carrying  to 
completion  the  ministry  of  John. 

Underlying  any  man’s  teaching  is  his  conception  or 
idea  of  God,  which  includes  not  only  the  character  of 
God  but  what  that  character  involves — His  relation  to 
man. 

We  note  the  harshness  of  John’s  doctrine  that  God 
could  more  easily  make  new  Israelites  out  of  stones  than 
bear  with  inexhaustible  patience  the  waywardness  of  a 
race  whom  He  had  hitherto  regarded  as  His  children ; 

1  This  account  of  John’s  baptism  is  neither  the  Christian  view  of 
baptism,  nor  does  it  suggest  that  John  proclaimed  God’s  friendliness 
to  men  while  they  were  yet  sinners.  Josephus  tells  us  why  Herod 
murdered  John.  “Herod,  who  feared  lest  the  great  influence  John 
had  over  the  people  might  put  it  into  his  power  and  inclination  to 
raise  rebellion  (for  they  seemed  to  do  anything  he  should  advise) 
thought  it  best,  by  putting  him  to  death,  to  prevent  any  mischief  he 
might  cause,  and  not  bring  himself  into  difficulties  by  sparing  a  man 
who  might  make  him  repent  of  it  when  it  should  be  too  late.”  Josephus 
hated  Herod,  and  in  the  context  shows  a  deep  interest  in  the  double 
crime  of  this  Herod,  who  set  aside  his  lawful  wife — that  indignant 
princess  from  “the  rose-red  city  half  as  old  as  time  ” — and  married  his 
half-brother’s  wife,  Herodias,  who  was  also  his  niece.  So  it  would  seem 
that  Josephus  would  have  been  glad  to  make  the  murder  of  John  more 
heinous  by  adding  the  motive  of  personal  spite,  had  that  sensational 
story  been  current  in  his  lifetime.  As  he  does  not  assign  this  motive  to 
Herod,  we  may  take  it  that  this  whole  passage  about  John  is  not 
modified  by  Christian  editors. — Josephus,  Book  XXIII.  chap.  v.  §  2. 

90 


JOHN  THE  BAPTIST 

and  comparing  this  with  the  teaching  of  Jesus  concern¬ 
ing  God’s  tender  Fatherhood,  we  are  impressed  by  the 
sharp  contrast — a  contrast  we  must  develop  later. 

From  the  dawn  of  human  intelligence  until  the 
preaching  of  John  men  had  thought  of  the  unseen, 
divine  Power  as  favourable  to  those  who  pleased  Him 
and  hostile  to  those  who  did  not.  It  is  very  important 
to  realize  clearly  that  in  no  religion,  least  of  all  in 
Judaism,  had  God  been  thought  of  as  the  friend  of 
sinners.  Whatever  name  or  form  divine  Power  re¬ 
ceived  among  the  nations ;  whatever  the  notion  of 
what  constituted  disobedience  or  disrespect  to 
Divinity ;  in  one  belief  all  religions  agree — that  God 
was  hostile  to  sinners.  “  Until  John  ”  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  religion  had  consisted  only  in  the  gradual 
elevation  of  the  conception  of  God,  and  hence  of  what 
was  pleasing  to  God.  Men’s  earliest  notions  of  what 
pleased  the  divine  Power  expressed  themselves  in 
magical  ceremonies  and  taboo.  There  was  also  the 
qualification  of  racial  or  political  birthright ;  and 
added  to  these  came  the  notion  of  personal  self- 
discipline.  In  every  advanced  religion  all  these  ways  of 
seeking  divine  favour  have  been  welded  together  with 
varying  emphasis.  It  was  the  distinction  of  the 
Jewish  race  to  have  added  to  these  qualifications 
for  divine  favour  a  very  lofty  ethical  ideal.  Although, 
among  them,  with  the  elevation  of  the  idea  of  God’s 
ethical  requirements  came  the  idea  of  the  joy  of  dis¬ 
interested  love  to  Him,  the  necessity  of  fulfilling  condi¬ 
tions  to  obtain  His  favour  was  still  uppermost,  and 
dominated  the  conception  of  the  divine  character. 
Without  some  fulfilment  there  was  no  mercy.  We 
have  to  bear  in  mind  that  in  the  Law  and  the  Prophets 

9T 


The 

Baptist’s 
God  is  not 
the  Father 
preached 
by  Jesus. 


The  Law 
and  the 
Prophets 
until  John. 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


God’s  mercy  only  consisted  in  giving  sinners  a  long 
chance  to  reform  themselves :  if  they  did  not  do  so,  all 
mercy  towards  them  was  at  an  end  : 

“  Woe  to  you,  ye  sinners,  when  ye  have  died, 

If  ye  die  in  the  wealth  of  your  sins ; 

And  those  who  are  like  you  say  regarding  you  : 

‘  Blessed  are  the  sinners :  they  have  seen  all  their  days. 

And  now  they  have  died  in  prosperity  and  in  wealth, 

And  have  not  seen  tribulation  or  murder  in  their  life  ; 

And  they  have  died  in  honour, 

And  judgment  has  not  been  executed  on  them  during  their 
life.’ 

Know  ye  that  their  souls  will  be  made  to  descend  into  Sheol, 

And  they  shall  be  wretched  in  their  great  tribulation. 

And  into  darkness  and  chains  and  a  burning  flame  where  there 
is  grievous  judgment  shall  your  spirits  enter.” 

Book  of  Enoch ,  ciii.  5-8. 

“  God,  merciful  and  gracious,  slow  to  anger  .  .  .  that  will  by 
no  means  clear  (the  guilty),  visiting  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers 
upon  the  children,  and  upon  the  children’s  children,  upon  the 
third  and  upon  the  fourth  generation.” — Exodus  xxxiv.  6-7. 

Across  this  long  line  of  unbroken  belief  in  God’s 
penal  hostility  to  sinners  I  believe  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
broke  with  a  new  idea  of  God.  The  evidence  for 
this  belief  has  next  to  be  considered. 


92 


CHAPTER  VIII 


THE  DIES  IRA,  AND  THE  GOSPEL  OF  THE  KINGDOM 

In  the  light  of  preceding  chapters  we  come  now  to 
consider  whether  the  new  tidings  of  the  Kingdom  1 
which  Jesus  gave  forth  summed  up  and  developed  the 
teaching  of  the  Baptist  and  his  forerunners,  or  con¬ 
tradicted  and  superseded  that  teaching. 

“  John  came  neither  eating  nor  drinking”;  and  inTheprophet 
the  pleasureless  wilderness  he  stood  and  cried  to  the  pie^ureless 
men  of  his  generation  to  come  out  from  all  their  wilderness, 
common  avocations,  from  their  homes  and  their 
markets,  and  avoid  the  fire  of  God’s  destruction  by- 
baptism  and  renunciation  of  their  sins.  Sin  and  con¬ 
demnation  and  the  “  wrath  to  come  ”  were  the  themes 
of  his  fierce  eloquence.  This  is  what  the  Gospels 
tell  of  him.  Was  such  a  message  “  good  news  ”  ? 

The  same  Gospels  tell  of  Jesus  coming  among  the 
homes  and  markets  of  the  common  people,  the  very 
incarnation  of  abundant  life  and  joy.  Mark  begins 
his  narrative  with  the  attraction  Jesus  exercised  over 
Simon  and  Andrew,  James  and  John.  They  were  to  go 
with  him  to  “  catch  men  ”  for  God  ;  and  they  saw  that 
his  way  of  catching  men  was  to  heal  the  suffering 

1  The  phrase  "  Kingdom  of  God  "  or  “  of  heaven  ”  does  not  appear 
to  be  used  in  any  pre-Christian  apocalypse,  and  there  is  no  good  reason 
to  suppose  that  John  the  Baptist  used  it.  See  Chap.  xxi. 

93 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Jesus  the 
incarnation 
of  life  and 
joy. 


JL*#-  i  J  V 

f.  .  •*  % 

I  ^ 


t 

f 


[  o 

w 


demoniacs  and  the  sick.  Immediately  after  we  are  told 
that  the  people  brought  him  “  all  that  were  diseased 
and  oppressed  with  devils.”  We  get  a  reference  to  the 
prayers  that  Jesus  prayed ;  going  alone  into  rural 
places  at  the  hour  of  the  morning  star,  he  seems  to  have 
felt  himself  akin  to  the  daybreak.  Then  we  come  to  the 
healings  of  the  leper  and  the  paralytic,  and  the  loosing 
of  the  paralytic  from  his  sins.  Then  follows  the  call  of 
the  outcast  Levi ;  the  feasting  with  publicans  and 
sinners  ;  the  defence  of  his  disciples,  when  the  religious 
leaders  chid  them  for  not  fasting,  with  the  words,  “  Can 
the  children  of  the  bride-chamber  fast  while  the  bride¬ 
groom  is  with  them  ?  ”  Bridegrooms  in  our  modern 
days  are  comparatively  sombre  creatures,  but  in  those 
days  a  bridegroom  was  borne  by  his  friends  to  the  wed¬ 
ding,  the  central  delight  of  the  gayest  of  human  festivi¬ 
ties,  the  very  symbol  of  pleasure  and  rejoicing.  All  this 
comes  before  Mark  has  got  well  under  weigh  with  the 
story  he  has  to  tell.  Religion  thus  restated  would  be 
indeed  good  news  ! 

Matthew  and  Luke  reinforce  this  general  impression. 
Matthew  begins  his  prelude  by  quoting  from  Isaiah, 
“  The  people  that  sat  in  darkness  saw  a  great  light, 
and  to  them  that  sat  in  the  region  and  shadow  of  death 
light  is  sprung  up.”  Matthew  collects  early  in  his 
narrative  a  great  deal  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  Besides 
Q,  he  apparently  had  another,  and  certainly  not  less 
original,  compilation  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus.1  Luke  be¬ 
gins  his  story  of  the  ministry  by  telling  us  that  Jesus  took 
to  himself  the  words  of  Isaiah  :  “  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord 
is  upon  me,  because  he  hath  anointed  me  to  preach  the 
gospel  to  the  poor  ;  he  hath  sent  me  to  heal  the  broken- 

1  Compare  forthcoming  book,  The  Four  Gospels,  by  Canon  Streeter. 


94 


THE  DIES  IRJE  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


hearted,  to  preach  deliverance  to  the  captives,  and 
recovering  of  sight  to  the  blind,  to  set  at  liberty  them 
that  are  bruised,  to  preach  the  acceptable  year  of  the 
Lord.  .  .  .”  There  Jesus  stopped,  but  the  Second 
Isaiah  did  not  stop.  With  him  “  the  acceptable  year 
of  the  Lord  ”  is  explained  to  be  “  the  day  of  vengeance 
of  our  God.”  In  Isaiah  the  beautiful  words  about 
“  beauty  for  ashes,  the  oil  of  joy  for  mourning,  the 
garment  of  praise  for  the  spirit  of  heaviness  ”  im¬ 
mediately  follow.  These  words  must  have  fascinated 
anyone  who  desired  to  bring  salvation  to  the  oppressed, 
but  they  are  omitted — may  we  surmise  because  they 
could  not  be  quoted  without  quoting  with  them  the 
expectation  of  the  divine  vengeance  ?  Luke  tells  us 
that  the  people  were  astonished  at  his  graciousness, 
at  the  doctrine  he  taught,  and  at  the  power  with 
which  he  brought  well-being  to  the  devil-tossed  and  the 
sick.  They  were  all  convinced  that  from  his  early 
ministry  there  was  a  great  effulgence  of  the  light  of  joy 
shed  upon  the  common  life  of  common  men.  It  was 
in  these  days  that  he  came  through  all  the  villages 
preaching  the  Kingdom. 

Can  the  Kingdom  preached  by  Jesus  in  his  early 
ministry  have  been  developed  from,  or  associated  with, 
the  apocalyptic  predictions  of  the  Baptist  and  his  fore¬ 
runners  ?  In  the  apocalyptic  view  the  reign  of  God 
was  associated  with  terrible  woes  and  the  day  of  doom  : 
these  woes,  this  judgment,  were  God’s  way  with  man. 
A  few  lines  of  description  will  suffice  to  enable  us  to 
realize  that  it  would  not  have  been  human  to  herald 
with  joy  the  near  approach  of  the  apocalyptic  “  day  of 
the  Lord.” 

“  And  there  shall  be  a  time  of  trouble,  such  as  never 

95 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Ta 6  b  o^t'he  waS  s*nce  there  was  a  nati°n>  and  at  that  time  my 
Messianic  6  people  shall  be  delivered  ”  (Daniel  xii.  i).  And  again 
reign.  (Daniel  vii.  9-14)  we  have  the  picture  of  the  Ancient 
of  Days  appearing  in  fiery  flame  and  the  destruction 
of  the  mighty  by  sword  and  fire  connected  with  the 
appearance  of  the  Son  of  Man — i.e.  the  personification 
of  the  redeemed  nation  1 — in  the  clouds.  Then,  also, 
there  is  Isaiah  xiii.  9  :  “  Behold  the  day  of  the  Lord 
cometh,  cruel  with  wrath  and  fierce  anger  ;  to  lay  the 
land  desolate,  and  to  destroy  the  sinners  thereof 
out  of  it,”  and  Joel  ii.  30-31  :  “  I  will  show  wonders 
.  .  .  blood  and  fire  and  pillars  of  smoke.  The  sun 
shall  be  turned  into  darkness,  and  the  moon  into 
blood,  before  the  great  and  terrible  day.  .  . 

Enoch’s  description  of  woe  is  a  growth  from  these 
Old  Testament  passages :  perhaps  part  of  it  even 
preceded  Daniel : 

“  Concerning  the  elect  I  said,  and  took  up  my  parable  con¬ 
cerning  them  : 

The  Holy  Great  One  will  come  forth  from  His  dwelling, . . . 
And  all  shall  be  smitten  with  fear, 

And  the  Watchers  shall  quake, 

And  great  fear  and  trembling  shall  seize  them  unto  the 
ends  of  the  earth  .  .  . ; 

And  the  earth  shall  be  wholly  rent  in  sunder, 

And  all  that  is  upon  the  earth  shall  perish, 

And  there  shall  be  a  judgment  upon  all  men. 

But  with  the  righteous  He  will  make  peace, 

And  will  protect  the  elect, 

And  mercy  shall  be  upon  them.  .  .  . 

1  “The  title  *  Son  of  Man  ’  in  Enoch  was  undoubtedly  derived  from 
Dan.  vii.,  but  a  whole  world  of  thought  lies  between  the  suggestive 
words  in  Daniel  and  the  definite  rounded  conception  as  it  appears  in 
Enoch.  In  Daniel  the  phrase  seems  merely  symbolical  of  Israel,  but 
in  Enoch  it  denotes  a  supernatural  person.” — The  Book  of  Enoch,  by 
Dr  Charles,  Appendix  II. 


96 


THE  DIES  1RJE  AND  THE  GOSPEL 


And  behold  !  He  cometh  with  ten  thousands  of  His  holy 
ones 

To  execute  judgment  upon  all, 

And  to  destroy  all  the  ungodly  : 

And  to  convict  all  flesh 

Of  all  the  works  of  their  ungodliness  which  they  have 
ungodly  committed, 

And  of  all  the  hard  things  which  ungodly  sinners  have 
spoken  against  Him.  .  .  . 

And  for  all  of  you  sinners  there  shall  be  no  salvation, 

But  on  you  all  shall  abide  a  curse.” 

Book  of  Enoch ,  i.  3-8  ;  v.  6. 

That  the  message  of  Enoch,  first  circulated  some  one 
hundred  and  fifty  years  before  Christ,  had  not  been 
modified  in  the  time  of  Jesus  is  proved  by  similar 
ideas  in  the  Apocalypse  of  Ezra,  written  at  the  end  of  the 
first  century  a.d.  : 

“  Behold  the  days  come  when  the  inhabitants  of  the  world 
shall  be  seized  with  great  panic.  .  .  . 

And  suddenly  shall  the  sun  appear  by  night, 

and  the  moon  by  day  ; 

and  the  wood  shall  distil  blood, 

and  the  stone  utter  its  voice  ; 

and  the  peoples  shall  be  in  commotion  ; 

and  the  air  shall  be  changed.” 

Apocalypse  of  Ezra ,  v.  1,  4-5. 

“  And  it  came  to  pass  that  when  I  heard  I  stood  upon  my  feet, 
and  I  heard,  and  lo  !  a  voice  of  one  speaking,  and  his  voice  was  as 
the  Toice  of  many  waters.  And  he  said  : 

Behold  the  days  come,  and  it  shall  be, 
when  I  am  drawing  nigh  to  visit  the  dwellers  upon  earth, 
and  when  I  am  about  to  require  at  the  hands  of  evil-doers, 
and  when  the  humiliation  of  Zion  shall  be  complete  ; 
and  when  this  world  is  about  to  be  sealed,  which  is  about  to 
pass  away  .  .  .” — Ibid.,  vi.  17-20. 

97 


G 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


In  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch ,  also  written  at  the  end 
of  the  first  century  a.d.,  we  read  : 

“  Thou,  too,  shalt  be  preserved  till  that  time,  till  that  sign 
which  the  Most  High  will  work  for  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  in 
the  end  of  days.  This,  therefore,  shall  be  the  sign.  When  a 
stupor  shall  seize  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth,  and  they  shall  fall 
into  many  tribulations,  and  again,  when  they  shall  fall  into  great 
torments.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  when  they  say  in  their 
thoughts  by  reason  of  their  much  tribulation  :  ‘  The  Mighty 
One  doth  no  longer  remember  the  earth  ’ — yea,  it  will  come  to 
pass  when  they  abandon  hope,  that  the  time  will  then  awake.” 
— Apocalypse  of  Baruch ,  xxv. 


If  Jesus 
piped  as  for 
a  dance,  he 
could  not 
have 

announced 
the  judg¬ 
ment  of  the 
apocalyptic 
seers. 


Such  was  the  dies  irce  of  contemporary  apocalyptic 
and  of  John  the  Baptist.  But  John,  we  are  told, 
emphasized  the  fact  that  the  descent  from  Abraham — 
which  no  doubt  the  majority  of  Jews  felt  to  be  the  bark 
that  would  carry  them  through  the  storm  of  judgment 
— was  entirely  insufficient.  Could  this  be,  in  any 
sense,  “  good  news  ”  ? 

It  is  true  that  there  was  a  conventional  aspiration,  a 
verbal  desire,  rife  among  the  Jews  for  the  coming  end 
of  the  age.  This  appears  to  resemble  closely  the 
aspiration  for  death  and  heaven  which  we  find  in 
many  Christian  hymns  of  the  eighteenth  and  nine¬ 
teenth  centuries.  But  even  to  a  Victorian  congrega¬ 
tion  lustily  singing  such  a  hymn  the  announcement 
that  all  would  soon  die  would  not  have  been  con¬ 
genial.  It  is  certain  that  the  announcement  that  the 
cataclysm  of  apocalyptic  vision  was  near  at  hand 
would  be,  to  all  classes  of  Jews,  a  message  fraught 
with  terror. 

If  “  the  common  people  heard  him  gladly  ”  the 
Kingdom  that  Jesus  preached  was  surely  not  the 

98 


THE  DIES  IRJE  AND  THE  GOSPEL 

goal  of  apocalyptic  eschatology.1  He  must  have  re- 
associated  the  word  with  a  new  idea.  He  must  have 
made  the  difference  very  clear.  He  himself  says  that 
he  piped  as  if  for  a  dance,  while  John  mourned  as  if  for  a 
funeral.  Perhaps  he  referred  to  the  world’s  funeral 
which  John  had  predicted  and  to  the  festal  dance  at 
which,  in  the  great  day  for  which  he  hoped,  the  world 
should  be  reconciled  to  God. 

1  Cf.  Chap,  xxi.,  by  C.  W.  Emmet. 


99 


CHAPTER  IX 


THE  SON  OF  MAN  AND  THE  OFFER  OF  ESCAPE 


The 

apocalyptic 
Son  of  Man 
portrayed 
as  cruel  and 
ruthless. 


In  earlier  chapters,  when  we  were  considering  the 
Judaic  idea  of  God  and  the  problem  of  God’s  cruelty, 
we  saw  that  the  discussion  of  the  character  of  God  must 
include  that  of  the  supernatural  agents  of  His  condemna¬ 
tion  or  salvation.  In  this  period  the  idea  was  common 
to  Jew  and  Gentile  that  the  Most  High  acted  upon 
the  worlds  of  matter  and  spirit  through  agencies 
variously  conceived.  The  divine  Logos,  the  divine 
Wisdom,  the  Angel  of  the  Covenant,  etc.,  were  thought 
of  as  manifestations  of  God.  Such  an  agent  was  the 
Son  of  Man  of  the  Book  of  Enoch. 

The  character  of  the  Almighty  and  of  His  agent,  the 
Son  of  Man,  is  thus  portrayed  in  that  book  : 

“  And  thus  the  Lord  commanded  the  kings  and  the  mighty 
and  the  exalted,  and  those  who  dwell  on  the  earth,  and  said, 
4  Open  your  eyes  and  lift  up  your  horns  if  ye  are  able  to  recognize 
the  Elect  One.’ 

And  the  Lord  of  Spirits  seated  him  on  the  throne  of  His 
glory, 

And  the  spirit  of  righteousness  was  poured  out  upon  him, 

And  the  word  of  his  mouth  slays  all  the  sinners, 

And  all  the  unrighteous  are  destroyed  from  before  his  face. 

And  there  shall  stand  up  in  that  day  all  the  kings  and  the 
mighty, 

And  the  exalted  and  those  who  hold  the  earth, 


IOO 


THE  SON  OF  MAN  AND  OFFER  OF  ESCAPE 


And.  they  shall  see  and  recognize 
How  he  sits  on  the  throne  of  his  glory, 

And  righteousness  is  judged  before  him. 

And  no  lying  word  is  spoken  before  him. 

Then  shall  pain  come  upon  them  as  on  a  woman  in  travail, 

And  she  has  pain  in  bringing  forth 

When  her  child  enters  the  mouth  of  the  womb, 

And  she  has  pain  in  bringing  forth. 

And  one  portion  of  them  shall  look  on  the  other, 

And  they  shall  be  terrified, 

And  they  shall  be  downcast  of  countenance, 

And  pain  shall  seize  them, 

When  they  see  that  Son  of  Man 
Sitting  on  the  throne  of  his  glory.” 

But  repentance  is  unavailing  : 

“  And  the  kings  and  the  mighty  and  the  exalted  and  those 
who  rule  the  earth 

Shall  fall  down  before  him  on  their  faces, 

And  worship  and  set  their  hope  upon  that  Son  of  Man, 
And  petition  him  and  supplicate  for  mercy  at  his  hands. 
Nevertheless  that  Lord  of  Spirits  will  so  press  them 
That  they  shall  hastily  go  forth  from  His  presence. 

And  their  faces  shall  be  filled  with  shame, 

And  the  darkness  shall  grow  deeper  on  their  faces. 

And  He  will  deliver  them  to  the  angels  for  punishment, 
To  execute  vengeance  on  them  because  they  have  oppressed 
His  children  and  His  elect : 

They  (the  elect)  shall  rejoice  over  them, 

Because  the  wrath  of  the  Lord  of  Spirits  resteth  upon  them, 
And  His  sword  is  drunk  with  their  blood.” 

Book  of  Enoch ,  lxii.  1-5,  9-12. 

The  Church  has  commonly  believed  that  Jesus 
accepted  the  role  of  apocalyptic  Son  of  Man  as  his 
own,  adopting  with  it  that  of  the  Suffering  Servant 
of  Isaiah  liii.  The  two  were  conceived  as  combined  in 

101 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


this  way — that  Jesus  on  earth  was  the  Suffering  Servant, 
and  became,  through  the  grave  and  gate  of  death,  the 
triumphant  Judge.  This  is  not  really  to  combine  these 
characters,  or  to  qualify  one  with  the  other ;  and  the 
notion  that  one  being  could  be  first  one  and  then, 
transformed  by  death,  become  the  other,  was  not 
original  to  Christianity.  Jewish  literature  of  our  period 
— 300  b.c.  to  100  a.d. — is  full  of  this  same  notion  of 
transformation  applied  to  the  ideal  Israel.  In  a  large 
number  of  Jewish  sayings,  “the  poor,”  “the  oppressed,” 
“  the  suffering,”  “  the  righteous  ”  are  interchangeable 
terms.  The  Suffering  Servant  of  Isaiah  was  accepted 
as  a  personification  of  this  ideal  Israel.  They  were 
poor  in  this  life,  and  the  character  of  Jahveh  was  to  be 
vindicated  by  transforming  them  in  glory  to  partici¬ 
pate  in  the  judgment  of  “  the  rich,”  “  the  full,”  “  the 
mighty,”  “  the  unrighteous.”  Israel  from  being  a 
Suffering  Servant  on  earth  was  to  sit  on  the  throne 
of  judgment : 

“  And  grieve  not  if  your  soul  into  Sheol  has  descended  in  grief, 
And  that  in  your  life  your  body  fared  not  according  to  your 
goodness, 

But  wait  for  the  day  of  the  judgment  of  sinners, 

And  for  the  day  of  cursing  and  chastisement.” 

Ibid.,  cii.  5. 

“  The  Most  High  God,  the  Eternal,  the  Only  God  shall 
arise, 

And  manifest  Himself  to  punish  the  nations,  .  .  • 

Then  shalt  thou  be  happy,  thou,  O  Israel.  .  .  . 

God  shall  exalt  thee.  .  .  . 

Thou  shalt  look  from  on  high,  and  behold  thy 
adversaries  on  the  earth, 

And  shalt  know  them  and  rejoice.” 

Assumption  of  Moses ,  x.  7-10. 

102 


THE  SON  OF  MAN  AND  OFFER  OF  ESCAPE 


The  idea  that  the  righteous  remnant,  the  ideal 
Israel,  was  itself  to  become  Judge  of  the  Gentiles  was 
not  uncommon,  and  is  seen  in  Daniel ,  where  the  ideal 
Israel  is  identified  with  the  apocalyptic  Son  of  Man, 
and  in  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon ,  where  the  souls  of 
righteous  persons  are  said  to  become  judges  of  nations 
and  to  rule  over  peoples.1 

When  raised  to  this  supernatural  level  and  acting 
with  God  as  vindictive  Judge,  Israel,  or  the  Son  of  Man, 
must  have  been  regarded  as  in  union  with  the  divine 
character.  It  must  therefore  have  been  part  of  the 
Judaic  idea  of  God,  and  we  may  assume  that  if  Jesus 
did  not  exemplify  and  extol  such  a  character  in  his 
life,  he  could  not  have  thought  it  God-like  ;  and, 
vice  versa ,  if  he  did  not  believe  this  implacable  Judge 
to  portray  the  character  of  God  the  Father,  he  could 
not  have  accepted  the  role  of  apocalyptic  Son  of  Man. 

Let  us  examine  the  ideal  of  Enoch  more  fully  : 

“  In  those  days  shall  the  mighty  and  the  kings  who  possess  the 
earth  implore  Him  (the  Son  of  Man)  to  grant  them  a  little  respite 
from  His  angels  of  punishment  to  whom  they  were  delivered, 
that  they  might  fall  down  and  worship  before  the  Lord  of  Spirits, 
and  confess  their  sins  before  Him.  And  they  shall  say  :  .  .  • 
Would  that  we  had  rest  to  glorify  and  give  thanks 
And  confess  our  faith  before  His  glory  ! 

And  now  we  long  for  a  little  rest,  but  find  it  not : 

We  follow  hard  upon  it  and  obtain  it  not : 

And  light  has  vanished  from  before  us, 

And  darkness  is  our  dwelling-place  for  ever  and  ever : 

For  we  have  not  believed  before  Him, 

Nor  glorified  the  name  of  the  Lord  of  Spirits,  nor  glorified 
our  Lord, 

But  our  hope  was  in  the  sceptre  of  our  kingdom, 

And  in  our  glory. 

1  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  iii.  8. 

103 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


And  in  the  day  of  our  suffering  and  tribulation  He  saves  us 
not ; 

And  we  find  no  respite  for  confession.  .  .  . 

And  after  that  their  faces  shall  be  filled  with  darkness 
And  shame  before  that  Son  of  Man, 

And  they  shall  be  driven  from  His  presence, 

And  the  sword  shall  abide  before  His  face  in  their  midst.” 

Book  of  Enoch ,  lxiii.  I,  5-8,  11. 


The 

character 
of  Jesus 
contradicts, 
rather  than 
resembles, 
the  Son  of 
Man  of 
apocalyptic. 


There  is  nothing  in  other  apocalypses  to  contradict 
this  idea  of  God  :  compare  it  with  the  character  of 
the  All-Father  as  drawn  by  Jesus,  and  with  his  own 
character  as  the  Son  of  Man  as  seen  in  the  Gospel 
story  : 

“  But  Jesus  called  them  to  him,  and  saith  unto  them,  Ye  know 
that  they  which  are  accounted  to  rule  over  the  Gentiles  exercise 
lordship  over  them  ;  and  their  great  ones  exercise  authority 
upon  them.  But  so  it  shall  not  be  among  you  :  but  whosoever 
will  be  great  among  you,  shall  be  your  minister  :  and  whosoever 
of  you  will  be  the  chief est,  shall  be  servant  of  all.  For  even  the 
Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister, 
and  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many.” — Mark  x.  42-45. 


“  It  hath  been  said,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  and  hate 
thine  enemy.  But  I  say  unto  you,  Love  your  enemies  .  .  . 
that  ye  may  be  the  children  of  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven  : 
for  he  maketh  his  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and  on  the  good,  and 
sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and  on  the  unjust.  ...  Be  ye  there¬ 
fore  perfect,  even  as  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven  is  perfect.” 
—Matthew  v.  43-48. 

“  For  the  Son  of  Man  came  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which 
was  lost.” — Luke  xix.  10. 

“  What  man  of  you,  having  a  hundred  sheep,  and  having  lost 
one  of  them,  doth  not  leave  the  ninety  and  nine  in  the  wilder¬ 
ness,  and  go  after  that  which  is  lost,  until  he  find  it  ?  And  when 
he  hath  found  it,  he  layeth  it  on  his  shoulders,  rejoicing.  And 
when  he  cometh  home  he  calleth  together  his  friends  and  his 

104 


THE  SON  OF  MAN  AND  OFFER  OF  ESCAPE 


neighbours,  saying  unto  them,  Rejoice  with  me,  for  I  have 
found  my  sheep  which  was  lost.  I  say  unto  you,  that  even  so 
there  shall  be  joy  in  heaven  over  one  sinner  that  repenteth, 
more  than  over  ninety  and  nine  righteous  persons,  which  need 
no  repentance.” — Luke  xv.  4-7. 

We  must  remember  that  the  brief  allusion  to  the  Son 
of  Man  conceived  as  this  regenerate  nation  in  Daniel 
had  little  to  rouse  the  imagination  compared  with  the 
gorgeous  descriptions  of  the  supernatural  individual 
called  the  Son  of  Man  in  the  Book  of  Enoch,  The  Jews 
were  an  imaginative  people.  This  book,  with  its  images 
and  rhythmic  phrases,  had  passed  into  the  common 
speech  and  common  mental  scenery  of  the  nation  at 
the  time  of  Jesus.  All  other  apocalypses  assumed 
its  cruel  ideals.  But  the  history  of  the  Wisdom 
literature,  its  staunch  morality,  its  love  of  God  and 
its  repudiation  of  all  extravagance,  taken  together 
with  the  history  of  Judaism  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem, 
makes  it  clear  that  there  must  have  been  a  strong 
godly  minority  who  through  all  this  period  had  centred 
their  minds  on  what  was  essential  in  the  religion  of 
Jahveh,  and  were  able  to  adapt  this  to  a  cosmopolitan 
outlook  and  the  synagogue  worship  of  the  Dispersion. 
To  which  of  these  classes  are  we  to  believe  Jesus 
belonged  ?  1 

We  have  seen  how  clearly  sensitive  souls  in  Judaism 
apprehended  and  stated  the  difficulty  of  reconciling 
the  kindness  and  the  cruelty  of  God.2  That  problem 
has  become  for  the  Christian  Church  the  problem  of  the 
love  and  cruelty  of  Jesus  Christ.  Confronted  with  the 
facts,  we  are  bound  to  ask  whether  Jesus  could  have 

1  Cf.  Part  III.  chap,  xxii.,  by  C.  W.  Emmet. 

2  See  Chapter  iv. 

I05 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Fear  of 
universal 
doom 
makes  sal¬ 
vation 
equivalent 
to  escape. 


The  Jew 
sought 
national 
escape. 


believed  that  his  own  character  was,  or  could  after 
death  develop  into,  that  of  the  implacable  Judge 
who  consigned  sinners  to  age-long  torture,  and  before 
whom  repentance  was  unavailing.  This  question  can 
only  be  answered  by  an  appeal  to  what  is  most  essential 
in  his  own  teaching,  to  the  character  of  his  own  actions 
and  the  calibre  of  his  understanding. 

Closely  connected  with  this  problem  is  the  question 
whether  Jesus  preached  the  doctrine  of  individual 
escape  from  a  doomed  world.  If  the  speedy  doom  and 
final  judgment  of  the  world  as  administered  by  himself 
were  to  be  such  as  all  the  apocryphal  books  described, 
escape  was  the  only  hope.  A  terrible  doom  awaited  the 
majority.  But  within  the  enclosure  of  Jewish  thought 
this  escape  was  never  individual :  it  was  the  escape  of 
the  righteous  part  of  the  nation,  held  to  be  the  true, 
spiritual  nation.  For  the  Jew  the  righteous  unit  was 
the  nation ,  of  which  righteous  individuals  were  only 
fractions. 

In  the  Gentile  world  it  was  very  different.  The 
supremacy  of  Rome  had  killed,  or  was  killing,  the 
patriotism  of  small  subject  races,  sublimating  it  in 
the  pride  of  Rome.  The  small  national  religions  were 
losing  their  prestige.  In  the  flux  of  such  conditions 
under  the  Empire,  the  chief  notion  of  personal  religion 
was  “  Every  man  for  himself  ”  ;  and  very  literally  the 
devils  were  believed  to  take  the  laggards.  Like  the 
Jews  they  wanted  escape  from  a  power  outside  them¬ 
selves  that  worked  for  destruction  ;  but  with  them 
each  fugitive  soul  was  independent  of  its  earthly  neigh¬ 
bours.  The  loosely  constructed  brotherhood  of  the 
Mystery  Religions  was  a  refuge  for  such  individual 
ugitives. 

106 


THE  SON  OF  MAN  AND  OFFER  OF  ESCAPE 


These  current  Gentile  religions  furnished  a  quite 
different  conception  of  the  character  of  God,  which 
Christian  thought  has  freely  used  in  constructing  its 
Christology.  This  conception,  like  that  of  the  Enoch 
Son  of  Man,  was  very  prevalent,  not  among  the  Jews — 
unless,  indeed,  the  baptism  of  John  shows  some  trace  of 
it — but  among  the  class  of  heathen  converts  that  flocked 
into  the  Church  before  the  Gospels  in  their  present  The  Gentile 
form  were  written.  This  was  the  character  of  the  god  individual 
of  saved  individuals  that,  under  very  different  names  escape, 
and  symbols,  was  the  object  of  adoration  in  the  Mystery 
Religions.  This  god — or  sometimes  goddess — offered 
to  individual  souls  escape  from  the  common  lot,  and 
when  these  religions  rose  to  some  moral  height,  purity 
of  life  and  a  certain  standard  of  good  neighbourliness 
were  demanded  of  the  initiates.  What  was  not 
demanded  of  them  was  that  they  should  save  the  world 
in  which  they  lived.  Their  religion  consisted  in  a 
plan  of  escape  from  that  world  and  from  the  doom  that 
was  conceived  to  attend  the  average  person  after  death. 

Mr  Edwyn  Bevan  thus  describes  the  perhaps  nobler 
side  of  this  desire  for  escape  : 

“  Stoicism  of  the  high  and  dry  scholastic  kind,  although  it 
purported  to  give  men  the  key  of  the  universe  and  human  life, 
left  many  of  their  natural  desires  unsatisfied  .  .  .  and  this 
kind  of  defect  was,  one  must  believe,  more  generally  felt  at 
the  time  of  the  Christian  era  than  in  the  days  when  Stoicism 
was  first  instituted.  For  some  reason  or  other,  men  apparently 
had  come  to  feel  more  keenly  the  inadequacy  of  a  life  limited  by 
our  bodily  senses,  to  strain  more  and  more,  in  tedium  or  disgust, 
or  in  some  craving  for  a  larger  life,  away  from  this  world  to  the 
Unexplored  beyond.  Of  course,  the  feeling  had  always  existed 
to  some  extent  :  the  old  Bacchic  and  Orphic  sects  centuries 
before  had  borne  witness  to  it  among  the  Greeks  :  but  in  the 

107 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


later  world  the  feeling  had  become  more  general.  ...  A 
feeling  came  over  men,  and  suddenly  the  familiar  Universe 
seemed  a  strange  place,  terrifying  in  its  enormous  magnitude — 
the  earth  stretching  into  regions  of  unexplored  possibilities, 
moved  and  shaken  by  inhuman  forces,  and  over  all  the  silent 
enigma  of  the  wheeling  stars.  They  awoke,  as  it  were,  to  find 
themselves  lost  in  the  streets  of  a  huge,  strange  city.”  1 

Professor  H.  A.  A.  Kennedy  gives  us  this  phase  of 
religion  : 

“  It  is  not  difficult  to  give  a  rough  account  of  the  chief  aims  of 
the  Mystery  Religions.  They  may  be  said  to  offer  salvation 
(crcoTtjpla)  to  those  who  have  been  duly  initiated.  And  salvation 
means  primarily  deliverance  from  the  tyranny  of  an  omni¬ 
potent  Fate,  which  may  crush  a  human  life  at  any  moment. 
Death,  with  its  unknown  terrors,  will  be  Fate’s  most  appalling 
visitation.  Hence  the  element  prized  above  all  others  in  crooTrjpLa 
is  the  assurance  of  a  life  which  death  cannot  quench,  a  victorious 
immortality.  This  boon  is  reached  by  the  process  of  regenera¬ 
tion.  A  genuinely  Divine  life  is  imparted  to  the  initiate.  .  .  . 
The  full  significance  of  the  process  becomes  clear  from  its  being 
frequently  described  as  deification  (< peooOrjvcu )  and  it  always 
seems  to  depend  on  some  kind  of  contact  with  Deity.”  2 

He  goes  on  to  speak  of  the  mystical  eating  of  the  god 
Dionysus,  of  the  states  of  enthusiasm  and  ecstasy 
produced  in  the  mystic  cults  both  of  Dionysus  and 
Cybele,  the  ecstasy  producing  the  saving  contact  with 
the  god.  In  the  worship  of  Hermes  and  of  Mithra  it 
is  pointed  out  that  we  get  symbolized  the  same  concep¬ 
tion  of  saving  contact : 

“  One  of  the  most  arresting  aspects  of  the  idea  of  regeneration 
in  the  Mystery  Religions  is  that  which  is  associated  with  the 
death  and  restoration  to  life  of  a  Divine  person,  a  process 

1  Stoics  and  Sceptics  (Oxford  Clarendon  Press,)  pp.  96-97. 

2  St  Paul  and  the  Mystery  Religions  (Hodder  &  Stoughton),  pp. 
199-200. 

I08 


THE  SON  OF  MAN  AND  OFFER  OF  ESCAPE 


through  which,  by  a  mystic  sympathy,  the  initiate  obtains 
the  guarantee  of  undying  life  for  himself.” 1 

The  point  that  is  important  for  us  is  the  individual 
nature  of  salvation  thus  conceived.  Of  Orphism 
Professor  Kennedy  says : 

“  Orphic  theology  had  been  specially  concerned  with  the 
salvation,  by  rites  of  purification,  of  the  individual  soul.  As 
this  individualism  became  more  pronounced,  the  Orphic  could 
no  longer  find  a  complete  satisfaction  in  the  immediate  union 
with  his  God  in  orgiastic  ecstasy.  .  .  .  Pythagoras  rekindled 
the  mystic  faith  inherent  in  Orphism  by  transforming  the  cult 
into  a  way  of  life.  He  substituted  for  ritual  cleansing  a  puri¬ 
fication  by  means  of  the  4  pursuit  of  wisdom  ’  (</u\o<7o</>/a).”  2 

Later  on  he  says : 

“  One  effect  of  this  individualistic  appeal  is  very  suggestive. 

Many  devout  people,  not  content  with  a  single  initiation, 
embraced  every  fresh  opportunity  that  came  to  them  of  using 
this  means  of  communion  with  deity.  .  .  .  The  truth  which 
they  would  feign  grasp  was  presented  to  them  in  the  guise  of 
Divine  revelations,  esoteric  doctrines  to  be  carefully  concealed 
from  the  gaze  of  the  profane,  doctrines  which  placed  in  their 
hands  a  powerful  apparatus  for  gaining  deliverance  from  the 
assaults  of  malicious  demonic  influences,  and  above  all,  for  over¬ 
coming  the  relentless  tyranny  of  Fate.”  3 

We  have  here  another  problem  of  great  magnitude  :  Did  Jesus 
Did  Jesus  think  of  himself  as  saving  individual  souIs  to 

from  a  future  doom  that  would  fall  on  the  human  race  patriots  ? 
at  large,  or  did  he  believe  that  the  intense  long-nurtured 
patriotism  of  Israel  was  of  God,  and  could  be  sublimated 
into  a  world-saving  agency?  4 

Again  the  appeal  must  be  to  his  own  teaching. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  206.  2  Ibid.,  p.  13.  3  Ibid.,  pp.  22,  23. 

*  Compared  with  this  question,  the  question  as  to  whether  the 
Church  took  over  the  symbols  and  ritual  of  the  Mystery  cults  is 
unimportant,  as  are  all  questions  of  ritual  as  compared  with  questions 
of  ethics. 

109 


PART  II 

THE  GENIUS  OF  JESUS 


< 


CHAPTER  X 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PORTRAIT 


By  the  providence  of  God  or  by  the  culpable  neglect  No  literal 

of  men,  we  are  left  with  only  such  record  of  the  teach-  hStory^f 

ing  of  Tesus  as  must  make  all  interpretation  of  him  the  sayings 
°  .  r  of  Jesus 

speculative  in  the  first  essay.  We  propose  to  try  to  has  been 

discover  what  was  original  to  him  by  first  distinguishing  glven  us* 
and  setting  aside  those  elements  of  the  teaching  as 
recorded  which,  whether  actually  part  of  his  message  or 
not,  certainly  did  not  originate  with  him,  and  which, 
being  characteristic  of  the  religion  of  the  first  Christians 
at  the  time  the  Synoptic  Gospels  were  written,  may 
possibly  have  filtered  into  the  record  from  contem¬ 
porary  thought  and  be  no  part  of  the  teaching  of  the 


Master. 

As  we  have  seen,  a  great  number  of  those  Jews  Jewish  con- 
who  embraced  Christianity  had  their  minds  filled  with  toniix^6 
apocalyptic  teaching.  It  was  in  the  figures  and  terms  ^Ectrine**0 
of  this  teaching  that,  immediately  upon  the  death  of  with  the 
Jesus,  they  explained  his  life  and  death  and  resurrec-  tradition, 
tion.  Their  legal  minds  felt  the  need  of  a  supreme  sin- 
offering  to  account  for  his  teaching  of  God’s  free 
forgiveness.  A  despised  sect,  they  wanted  an  avenger 
to  come  quickly  to  destroy  his  enemies  and  theirs. 

Again,  the  Gospels  were  not  written  until  after  the 
influx  of  Gentiles  into  the  Church,  and  the  greater 


”3 


H 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


The  notion 

of  a  private 

salvation 

common 

among 

Greek 

converts. 


If  these  are 
eliminated 
the  bulk  of 
the  teach¬ 
ing  is  con¬ 
sistent. 


number  of  those  Gentiles  who  embraced  Christianity 
had  their  minds  filled  with  the  salvation  set  forth  in  the 
imagery  and  phrases  of  the  various  Mystery  Religions 
that  offered  a  personal  refuge  from  the  common  condi¬ 
tion  of  men  who  were  the  prey  of  supernatural  terrors 
and  the  fear  of  death.  They  knew  little  of  Israel,  or 
of  that  long  history  which  had  raised  brutal  instinct  into 
esprit  de  corps  for  the  living  God.  Their  own  salvation 
had  been  sought  by  initiation  into  an  exclusive  society 
through  ceremonies  which  led  to  ecstatic  adoration 
of  a  Saviour-God,  who  was  the  private  property  of 
his  initiates. 

We  are,  therefore,  justified  in  believing  that  if  in  the 
Gospels  as  we  have  them  there  is  some  infiltration  of 
matter  extraneous  to  the  thought  of  Jesus,  the  elements 
most  likely  to  be  thus  intruded  would  be  those  beliefs 
concerning  the  end  of  the  world  characteristic  of  the 
Jewish  thought  of  the  period,  and  the  beliefs  connected 
with  individual  escape  from  a  lost  world  characteristic 
of  those  Gentiles  who  accepted  Christianity.  If,  by 
way  of  experiment,  we  eliminate  these  ideas  from  the 
Synoptic  record,  what  have  we  left  ? 

We  have  the  portrait  of  a  prophet  with  a  new  vision 
of  God  and  man,  a  thinker  with  a  new  philosophy  of 
salvation,  a  poet  with  a  transcendent  gift  of  condensed 
and  picturesque  expression. 

Jesus  grew  to  full  vigour  of  manhood  in  Galilee  at 
the  time  of  the  Baptist’s  revival  preaching.  Tradition 
tells  us  that  he  had  early  shown  most  remarkable 
intellectual  powers,  and  as  all  religious  Jews  went  when 
possible  to  the  Temple  feasts,  he  would  have  travelled 
sometimes  to  Jerusalem  and  would  have  met  upon  the 
road  not  only  Jewish  fanatics,  but  educated  Jews 

1 14 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PORTRAIT 


from  all  the  cities  of  the  Empire.  He  was  not  among  jesus  did 
the  disciples  who  assisted  John  in  the  enormous  work  ^  Baptfct 
of  baptizing  the  multitudes  that  flocked  to  Jordan1;  and 
later  he  proclaimed  publicly  that  John  belonged  to  a 
superseded  school  of  thought ;  so  that  it  is  fair  to  infer 
that  from  the  first  he  doubted  the  complete  inspiration 
of  John’s  message.  Yet  John’s  teaching  was,  at  that 
hour,  perhaps  the  purest  and  best  the  world  had  seen. 

Luke  tells  us  that  he  proclaimed  a  humanitarian  ethic  2 
as  the  first  essential  of  the  religious  life.  Jesus  sub¬ 
mitted  himself  to  John’s  baptism,  perhaps  as  publicly 
taking  the  side  of  the  best  that  then  was,  perhaps  in 
youthful  doubt  as  to  whether  his  own  solitary  con¬ 
victions  reflected  the  mind  of  God.  In  the  hour  of 
his  baptism  he  had  a  sudden  experience  of  communion 
with  God  in  which  he  attained  the  perfect  conviction 
that  he,  and  not  John,  had  the  message  of  salvation 
for  his  people,  and,  through  them,  for  the  world. 

This  conviction  drove  him  at  once  away  from  the  scenes 
of  John’s  ministry.  He  went  into  another  part  of  the 
wilderness,  probably  to  think  out  further  the  expres¬ 
sion  of  the  inward  knowledge  to  which  he  had  attained 
by  years  of  thought  and  which  he  now  felt  sure  was 
according  to  the  mind  of  God.  He  felt  himself  at  one 
with  God  as  against  the  world,  and  to  hold  in  the 
hollow  of  his  hand  that  for  which  the  whole  world 
craved. 

There  is  evidence  that  he  had  the  world-outlook 
but  that  his  first  and  most  special  thought  was  for  his 
nation.*  The  whole  framework  of  Jewish  thought 
demanded  that  the  Gentile  world,  if  saved  at  all, 
should  be  saved  by,  or  through,  the  Jews.  His  fellow- 
1  See  Chap.  viii.  2  Luke  iii.  ii,  14.  3  Cf.  Chap.  xii. 

”5 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


The  tempta¬ 
tion  of  soli¬ 
tude  is  the 
call  of  the 
herd. 


countrymen  were  divided  roughly  into  three  classes, 
with  each  of  whom  he  must  from  boyhood  have  had 
much  to  do.  Sympathetic  and  large-hearted  as  he 
was,  he  must  have  felt  great  natural  sympathy  for 
each.  First,  he  loved  the  common  people  who  would 
not  take  the  ritual  laws  of  their  religion  very  seriously, 
because  with  them,  as  with  all  poor  men  the  world  over, 
the  mere  business  of  getting  a  living  absorbed  all 
thought.  The  ground  out  of  which  the  poor  produce 
their  bread  is  always  stony  :  with  his  genius  and  power 
to  influence  men,  he  could  do  much  to  better  their 
material  conditions ;  was  it  right  to  devote  his  life 
only  to  giving  them  the  word  of  God  ?  Again,  he 
must  have  had  great  sympathy  with  the  faith  and  self- 
devotion  of  the  Pharisees,  and  with  the  hot  advocates  of 
revolt  who  later  were  called  Zealots.  Both  alike 
believed  that  if  they  gave  themselves,  though  in  very 
different  ways,  with  sufficient  devotion  to  God’s  ser¬ 
vice,  God  would  interfere  with  a  miraculous  salvation 
on  behalf  of  their  nation  ;  but  both  conceived  that 
service  as  something  that  could  not,  apart  from  miracle, 
forward  the  end  in  view.  The  scrupulous  keeping  of 
the  law  could  not  naturally  dethrone  the  Caesars ; 
the  puny  armies  of  Israel  could  not  naturally  vanquish 
the  armies  of  the  Empire.  On  the  best  estimate  they 
were  wasting  time,  waiting  for  a  miracle  :  they  were 
seeking,  as  it  were,  to  cast  the  whole  nation  down  from 
the  pinnacle  of  the  Temple,  believing  that  God  would 
bear  it  up.  Was  he  quite  sure  that  it  was  never  God’s 
way  to  save  by  such  miraculous  interference  ?  And 
there  was  a  third  class — the  godly  Hellenizers 1 — who 


1  The  author  or  authors  of  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  are  good 
examples  of  this  class. 

116 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PORTRAIT 


saw  quite  clearly  that  there  was  so  much  that  was  good 
in  the  culture  of  the  Gentile  world  that  many  of  the 
Gentiles,  even  as  they  were,  were  worthy  to  sit  down 
in  the  kingdom  of  God.  All  the  kingdoms  of  the  world 
and  the  glory  of  them  were  open  to  those  who  trans¬ 
cended  national  prejudices  and  accepted  the  culture 
of  the  Empire.  There  was  so  much  that  he  saw  to  be 
wrong  in  national  prejudices ;  was  compromise  with 
the  worship  of  the  Hellenic  culture  on  the  whole  the 
better  way  ? 

At  this  juncture  it  seems  almost  inevitable  that  it 
would  be  a  great  temptation  to  Jesus  to  ally  himself 
with  one  of  these  classes  rather  than  start  out  upon  a 
task  of  such  tremendous  difficulty  all  alone.  In  any 
case,  the  conversion  of  these  three  classes  of  his  people 
must  have  bulked  large  in  the  task  he  saw  before  him, 
and  in  some  way  shaped  the  parable  of  the  Temptation. 

He  did  not  compromise  his  message  by  alliance  with  any 
class. 

After  long  meditation,  in  which,  contending  with  the  Jesus 

evils  that  possessed  the  world,  he  conferred  not  with  ^hathe 

man  but  with  God  alone,  Jesus  at  last  came  forth,  com-  must 
r  ......  r  ....  .  .  formulate 

forted  with  divine  comfort,  with  the  joyous  conviction  a  new 

of  divine  inspiration.  He  decided  to  go  first  to  his  messaSe- 
own  people  in  the  northern  province,  to  go  to  them  in 
their  own  towns  and  villages  and,  as  God’s  representa¬ 
tive,  preach  to  them  new  truth  about  God  and  His 
kingdom.  It  was  a  message  of  great  joy ;  it  was  to 
say  that  God  was  among  them  as  one  who  served  1  ; 
that,  unjust  and  unthankful  as  they  might  be,  they  were 
secure  of  God’s  abounding  favour  and  kindness ;  that 
they  must  turn  their  minds  from  all  hostility  because, 

1  Matt.  vii.  7-1 1  (and  parallels) ;  xviii.  19.  Luke  xii.  37  ;  xxii.  26-27. 

11 7 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


evil  as  they  were,  God  was  friendly  to  them.1  He 
assured  them  that  God  liked  them,  as  a  father  likes  his 
children,  doing  them  good  always,2  welcoming  them 
into  His  kingdom.3  The  kingdom  was  not  a  future 
event,  to  be  presaged  by  dire  distress,  but  a  spiritual 
reality  to  be  more  and  more  fully  accepted,  to  have 
cumulative  power  for  the  world. 

The  belief  that  some  time  in  the  future  God  would 
reign  on  earth  over  a  people  thoroughly  converted 
to  His  service  was  a  common  belief  ;  but,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  blessing  of  this  reign  was  always  in  the  future. 
It  was  associated  with  the  lurid  terrors  of  preceding 
judgment,  and  would  only  be  enjoyed  by  thoroughly 
reformed  people.4 

Jesus  Instead  of  this,  as  I  hope  to  show,  the  teaching  of 

divine S  the  Jesus  was  that  God,  here  and  now,  is  ruling  in  all 

nation  and  ^at  *s  kindly  and  compassionate,  beautiful  and  good,8 
man  as  that  He  does  not  ask  for  reformation  before  admitting 
abnormal.0^  men  and  nations  to  His  kingdom,  but  only  for  a  change 
of  mind — a  recognition  of  His  own  surpassing  goodness, 
which,  when  recognized,  will  convert  and  reform.6 
Instead  of  divine  inspiration  being  an  odd  and  rare 
thing,  God  is  indeed  as  willing  to  inspire  men  as  they 
are  to  give  bread  to  their  little  children  ;  and  it  is  well 
known  that  no  good  father  feeds  his  little  ones  with 
reference  to  their  deserts.  He  spoke  very  simply  to 
the  common  people,  with  many  figures  and  illustra¬ 
tions.  Instead  of  rating  them  for  not  keeping  the  law, 
he  taught  them  that  they  had  already  many  virtues 
which  God  approved,  and  many  misfortunes  which 

1  Matt.  v.  45.  8  Luke  vi.  35. 

3  Luke  xi.  13.  4  See  Chap.  viii.  pp.  96-98. 

•  See  Chap.  xiii.  p.  164  ff. ;  xvi.  p.  204  ff.  5  See  Chap.  xiii. 

1 18 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PORTRAIT 


would  draw  from  God  compassionate  compensations ; 
but  that  the  depth,  width  and  simplicity  of  God’s 
requirements  they  had  yet  to  learn. 

We  shall  find  that  he  set  forth  to  them  the  way  of 
life,  which  was  to  draw  from  God  inspiration  that  they 
might  see,  simply,  the  right  from  the  wrong,  and  to 
draw  from  Him,  too,  the  power  to  lead  beneficent  lives. 

He  bade  them,  as  a  nation  and  each  in  the  name  of 
the  national  God,  give  spiritual  hospitality  to  the 
inimical  world.  To  this  end  they  must  be  clothed  in 
the  beauty  of  divine  humility  and  readiness  to  serve, 
care-free  because  secure  of  God’s  loving-kindness  in 
life  and  death,  and  inspired  by  the  new  social  purpose 
of  welcoming  all  men  to  the  inexhaustible  riches  of 
God.  His  method  of  saving  the  world  was  that  men 
should  save  each  other,  the  joy  and  power  spreading 
as  leaven  spreads  in  meal,  as  seed  naturally  increases 
with  sure  and  rapid  multiplication. 

There  can  be  no  question  but  that  jesus  preached  as  Tesus  was 
one  whose  thoughts  and  dreams  were  full  of  the  love  and  j0y  r^og_ 
joy  of  God.  He  spoke  with  evident  inspiration  ; 
power  of  his  preaching  was  observed  by  all.  He  taught 
about  a  God  whose  glory  it  was  to  be  fatherly  to  every 
living  creature,  whose  holiness  consisted  in  overcoming 
hatred  by  love. 

The  announcement  or  gospel  of  Jesus  was  also  but  earth  as 

•  ii«  •  •  ri  i  c  austere 

terrible  in  its  imagery  of  the  natural  consequences  of  school  of 
sin.1  The  result  of  neglecting  to  learn  the  craft  of cause  and 
generously  carrying  to  all  men  the  beneficent  love  of  quence. 
God  would  be  a  national  destruction  that  would  engulf 
them  all.  Great  would  be  the  fall  of  the  house  in 
which  they  trusted  if  built  upon  the  sands  of  the 

1  See  Chap.  xiii. 


ll9 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


His  hope  for 
his  nation, 
and  its 
frustration. 


present  hostile  morality  and  apocalyptic  expectation. 
Merely  to  fail  to  accept  and  act  on  his  words  was  to 
build  upon  these  sands.  There  would  be  no  pretence 
of  justice  in  the  doom  of  consequence  :  the  well- 
intentioned  and  ill-intentioned  would  alike  perish  in  the 
destructive  wars  which  their  present  revolutionary 
attitude  was  bound  to  provoke,  and  the  fate  of  the 
Jewish  state  would  typify  the  fate  of  all  who  trusted 
in  privilege  and  sought  to  save  their  souls  from  the 
common  doom.  If  Jewish  tradition  caused  his  disciples 
to  transform  the  foresight  of  inevitable  consequence 
into  the  picturesque  prophecy  of  apocalyptic  judgment, 
it  is  only  what  we  should  expect. 

Jesus  certainly  held  that  God  had  made  the  austere 
world  of  sowing  and  reaping,  in  which  a  wrong  choice 
wrought  disaster  and  through  which  each  soul  must 
make  dangerous  pilgrimage  ;  but  God  did  not  stand 
outside,  like  a  master  with  hire  in  one  hand  and  a 
whip  in  the  other.  He  journeyed  with  each  soul, 
making  common  cause  with  it  to  fend  off  trouble 
and  increase  delight.  It  was  no  dualistic  scheme ; 
for  while  the  system  of  causation,  tending  to  vaster 
good,  could  not  be  adapted  to  individual  ends,  yet 
God  was  all  and  in  all.  The  innocent  sparrow  must 
fall,  yet  God  was  with  it,  and  God  Himself  the  sum 
of  all  delight. 

It  would  seem  that  the  splendid  simplification  of 
religion  at  which  Jesus  had  arrived  was  so  clear  to  his 
genius  and  so  attractive  to  his  generous  character 
that  he  thought  it  had  only  to  be  suggested  to  his 
people  to  be  accepted  ;  but  he  found  that  on  the  whole 
it  was  rejected  without  being  understood.  The  people 
were  drunk  with  the  old  wine  of  a  theology  that 

120 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PORTRAIT 


counted  their  national  grudge  and  national  selfishness, 
their  personal  indignations  and  superiorities,  God-like. 

They  could  not  taste  the  exquisite  new  wine  of  liberty 
and  power  that  he  offered.  In  his  urgency  to  persuade 
his  nation  to  be  the  light  of  the  world,  the  salt  that 
could  disinfect  humanity,  he  seems  to  have  realized 
more  and  more  the  unique  and  supreme  importance 
of  his  message.  He  alone  had  the  vision  of  truth.  If 
“  No  man  knoweth  the  Father  but  the  Son  ”  became  a 
reflection  of  bitter  experience,  “  No  man  knoweth  the 
Son  but  the  Father  ”  asserted  a  renewed  conviction 
that  God  alone  knew  what  he  strove  to  express.  His 
mission  was  to  make  Jerusalem  1  an  impregnable  base  His  identi- 
for  a  mission  of  God’s  truth  to  the  world.  Even  if  his  himself  °* 
people  received  him,  it  would  take  many  years  to  is 
educate  them  in  the  truth,  for  they  were  so  slow  to  message, 
learn.  But  if  they  would  not  take  upon  them  the 
yoke  of  national  forgiveness  and  the  mission  of  reveal¬ 
ing  God’s  love  to  the  world,  he  saw  all  too  clearly 
that  they  would  kill  him  and  that  there  would  be 
no  time  for  another  prophet  to  arise.  The  hour 
was  ominous.  With  his  clear  insight  into  the  only 
way  of  national  salvation,  he  was  ready  to  be  called 
by  any  name  that  meant  “  Saviour  ”  if  thereby  he 
could  arrest  the  attention  of  his  people  and  turn 
their  hearts.  They  must  accept  him  or  their  Church- 
State  would  perish,  and  with  it  the  hope  of  any 
orderly  and  undeviating  progress  in  the  salvation  of 
the  world. 

The  fever  of  apocalyptic  expectation  which  had  long 
been  burning  in  the  veins  of  the  nation  was  most 
acute  in  bands  of  fanatical  Jews  who  assembled  at  the 

1  See  Chap.  xii.  p.  146. 

1 2 1 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


His  death 
meant 
national 
catas¬ 
trophe. 


feasts  in  Jerusalem.  The  delirium  that  prated  of  God 
as  about  to  destroy  the  order  of  the  world  and  give  the 
sceptre  of  empire  to  Jerusalem  was  there  clamant.  It 
was  obvious  that  frenzy  and  national  suicide  would  soon 
result.  In  Jerusalem,  also,  the  subnormal  temperature, 
the  cynical  lack  of  enthusiasm,  of  the  Herodians  was 
more  apparent.  The  leaders  of  this  party  appeared 
willing  to  trade  what  was  sacred  in  the  national  Church 
for  worldly  ends.  The  petty  traders  in  the  Temple 
were  but  symbols  and  symptoms  of  this  political 
barter  in  the  things  of  God.  Jesus  must  have  known 
Jerusalem  well.  His  action  in  clearing  the  Father’s 
house  of  sacrificial  animals  and  all  that  made  priest¬ 
craft  lucrative,  must  have  been  premeditated  and 
symbolic.  He  shrank  from  death  with  a  terrible 
shrinking  because  his  death  meant  the  downfall  of 
Jerusalem,  that  sacred  city  set  upon  the  hill  of  all  the 
highest  that  the  world  had  yet  conceived  concerning 
God.  Had  he  been  able  to  teach  in  Jerusalem  with 
acceptance,  in  a  few  years  he  might  have  been  able  to 
make  them  understand  the  fulness  of  God’s  truth,  and 
thus  have  set  in  this  old  candlestick  of  divine  workman¬ 
ship  a  light  that  would  reach  to  the  darkest  places  of  the 
earth.  The  immeasurable  loss  to  the  world  broke  his 
heart. 

Yet  the  chief  characteristic  of  his  life  was  trust  in 
God,  whose  way  with  men  he  alone  understood.  As 
he  himself  had  received  in  personal  communion  the 
confirmation  of  all  his  most  daring  hopes  and  specula¬ 
tions  concerning  the  free  kindness  of  God,  he  was  sure 
that  God  would  impart  this  revelation  of  Himself 
sooner  or  later  to  the  world.  He  could  declare  to  the 
priests,  his  official  murderers,  that  his  message  would 

122 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PORTRAIT 

be  justified  in  the  ultimate  dominion  of  the  divin® 
wisdom.1 

The  power  of  his  presence  was  great.  He  seems  to 
have  radiated  the  health  of  God.  His  enthusiastic 
love  for  God  and  for  men,  his  serenity  in  danger,  his 
wit  in  dispute,  his  friendliness,  his  insight  and  power  of 
quick  decision,  and  that  something  of  majesty  which 
grew  upon  him  as,  by  his  continual  rejection,  he 
more  and  more  realized  that  to  him  alone  was  com¬ 
mitted  the  full  knowledge  of  God — all  combined  to 
create  a  profound  impression  of  ideal  manhood,  of 
God-likeness,  of  God  manifested  in  a  human  life.  This, 
at  the  least,  is  what  stands  out  as  the  story  of  the 
Synoptic  Gospels,  if  we  set  aside  the  current  beliefs  of 
the  age.  We  must  seek  further  for  its  corroboration. 

Let  us,  however,  immediately  note  how  inevitable  His 

•  •  •  rpi  ill  i  disciples 

was  misinterpretation.  1  he  apostles  had  expected  lacked  new 

for  him,  who  was  all  in  all  to  them,  visible  success  and  Hnguage  to 
7  7  express  a 

prestige  as  a  great  teacher  :  they  found  themselves  new  cer- 
suddenly  in  a  world  where  he  was  numbered  with  the  tamty* 
malefactors  and  his  memory  scorned.  They  had  a 
secret  knowledge  of  his  continued  presence  with  them. 

They  alone  knew  that  death  had  not  ended  his  ministry. 

They  could  not  express,  even  to  themselves,  the 
spiritual  power  which  had  transcended  death  except  by 
giving  him  a  place  in  the  popularly  accepted  drama  of 
the  end  of  the  world  and  the  day  of  judgment.  Any 
application  of  the  Messianic  doctrine  which  the 
apostles  at  first  made  would  probably  be  at  once  ex¬ 
aggerated  on  popular  lines.  The  character  of  “  judge 
or  divider  ”  amongst  them,  which  we  are  told  Jesus 
had  rejected  in  his  lifetime,  seemed  now  the  only  appro- 

1  See  C.  W.  Emmet,  Chap,  xxiii. 

123 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Christians 
participate 
with  Jews 
in  the  desire 
to  do  away 
with  Jesus. 


priate  one.  The  expectation  that  an  Agent  of  God 
was  coming  to  divide  the  inheritance  of  the  universe, 
giving  all  that  was  good  of  it  to  the  righteous,  elect, 
or  initiated  Jews,  fitted  in  with  Christian  beliefs,  the 
only  change  being  that  the  division  was  now  to  be  made 
between  the  Jews  who  accepted  and  those  who  re¬ 
jected  the  initiation  or  baptism  of  the  Christian  Church. 
The  wave  of  baptismal  enthusiasm  set  in  motion  by  the 
Baptist  rose  again,  and  at  once  lifted  the  name  of 
Jesus  into  comparative  popularity.  Jesus  and  John 
had  both  preached  a  humanitarian  ethic  :  the  likeness 
seemed  to  justify  the  amalgamation  of  the  character  of 
Jesus  with  that  of  the  destroying  agent  of  God  whose 
approach  John  had  foretold. 

The  Jews  had  to  let  the  Romans  execute  him  ;  they 
were  not  free  to  stone  him  to  death,  but  in  the  desire 
of  their  hearts  that  was  the  way  they  killed  him.  And 
those  of  them  who  pressed  into  the  Church  after  his 
death  combined  to  build  him  a  magnificent  sepulchre 
by  insisting  that  he  was  himself  that  implacable  Being 
who  would  soon  come  to  destroy  his  enemies  and  theirs, 
that  condemning  Judge  whom  they  so  desired  to  see  in 
the  heavens.  Do  we  not  whiten  that  sepulchre  to 
this  day  ? 

The  sepulchre  is  empty  :  he  was  never  held  by  the 
tomb.  His  transcendent  genius  has  been  the  truth 
that,  in  spite  of  all  attempts  at  rejection,  has  vitalized 
the  Christian  centuries,  that  will  more  and  more 
vitalize  the  future  for  us. 

But  the  causes  of  his  rejection  were  such  that  we 
can  easily  understand  and  participate  in  the  desire 
of  his  generation  to  qualify  his  message  by  the  intrusion 
of  their  own  hostilities.  We  ourselves  do  not  wish  to 

124 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PORTRAIT 


forgive  our  national  enemies,1  or  to  find  our  own  salva¬ 
tion  in  saving  the  world.  We  are  apt  to  ascribe  to 
his  opponents — Pharisees  and  Scribes — the  misunder¬ 
standing  of  his  message  :  we  easily  forget  that  it  was 
his  closest  followers  to  whom  he  said,  “  Ye  know  not 
what  spirit  ye  are  of  ”  ;  “  Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan.” 
“  Ye  know  not  what  ye  ask  :  can  ye  drink  of  the  cup 
that  I  drink  of  and  be  baptized  with  the  baptism 
wherewith  I  am  baptized  ?  ” 

We  have,  then,  the  corroboration  of  our  own  first¬ 
hand  knowledge  of  human  nature  to  the  naturalness 
of  this  misinterpretation.  Let  us  see  what  further 
corroboration  we  find  in  the  records  to  the  accuracy 
of  our  interpretation. 

*  Cf.  Chap.  xii.  p.  143  ff. 


125 


CHAPTER  XI 


NEW  IDEAS  OF  GOD  AND  MAN 

It  has  now  become  necessary  to  make  a  careful  examina¬ 
tion  of  the  historic  evidence  in  order  to  ascertain  what 
grounds  there  may  be  for  regarding  the  historic  Jesus 
as  great  in  power  of  thought,  pre-eminent  in  genius, 
and  able  to  transform  the  religious  thought  of  the 
world. 

To  this  end  we  have,  for  the  time,  set  aside  all 
traditional  interpretation  of  the  great  Personality  who 
is  the  subject  of  our  inquiry.  Even  if,  on  other 
grounds,  we  accept  the  fact  of  the  divinity  of  Jesus,  we 
must  proceed  upon  the  tentative  hypothesis  that  this 
was  not  manifested  in  miraculous  endowments,  but 
in  human  greatness.  We  need  not  be  convinced  that 
this  hypothesis  represents  the  truth,  but  it  is  the  only 
one  upon  which  we  can  proceed. 

First,  we  have  to  recognize  that  every  genius  must 
begin  life  as  the  child  of  his  place  and  time  ;  what  is 
original  to  a  great  thinker  is  always  produced  in 
reaction  to  the  thought  in  his  environment.  Another 
brief  survey  of  the  environment  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
may  help  us  to  see  how  natural  to  his  genius  it  was  to 
transcend  that  environment.  If  this  procedure  be 
felt  unsuitable  by  some  who  believe  that  he  was  the 
cc  super-natural,”  perfect,  and  final  revelation  of  God, 

126 


NEW  IDEAS  OF  GOD  AND  MAN 


let  it  be  remembered  that  we  assume  that  God  is 
Truth,  that  all  discovery  is  also  God’s  revelation,  that 
the  discovery  of  God’s  true  character,  i.e.  His  true 
relation  to  man’s  moral  need,  would  be  of  supreme 
value  to  man,  and  when  once  made  would  be  so  far 
final. 

We  may  take  it  as  certain  that  in  the  small  land  of 
Palestine,  while  John  was  accepting  the  traditional 
message  of  the  wrath  of  God  towards  sinners,  Jesus, 
in  his  northern  home,  was  pondering  deeply  the 
problem  of  Israel’s  redemption. 

As  we  have  seen,  the  time  was  critical ;  the  situation  The  crisis 

i  ill  •  i  •  r  i  •  i  in  which 

demanded  the  earnest  consideration  ot  every  thinker  tke  Baptist 

in  Israel.  Here  was  this  small  nation,  standing  against and  Jesu.s 

7  °  p.  appeared. 

the  world  for  its  belief  in  God,  beset  by  military 
despotism  from  without  and  by  irreligion  and  super¬ 
stition  within.  These  foes  were  not  new,  but  never 
since  the  Jewish  nation  had  begun  to  realize  its  national 
importance  had  the  theocratic  conception  of  Jahveh, 
which  was  the  very  centre  of  the  nation’s  belief, 
been  so  imperilled  as  by  the  obvious  insignificance  of 
Jahveh’s  nation  in  comparison  with  the  world-wide 
power  and  justice  of  Pagan  Rome.  The  Roman  law 
and  Roman  peace  were  in  many  aspects  salutary ; 
the  philosophy  and  ethics  of  Greece  in  her  highest 
period  had  gradually  become  so  diffused  through  the 
Empire  that  every  educated  Jew  knew  something  of 
their  value.  And  the  Jews  were  intelligent ;  educa¬ 
tion  was  more  advanced  among  them  than  Christian 
commentators  have  been  accustomed  to  allow.  How 
should  Jewish  culture  and  Jewish  law  triumph  over 
Roman  power  and  Hellenic  culture  ?  Then,  also,  the 
tiny  nation  was  racked  with  the  inward  dissensions  of 

127 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


those  who  sought  in  different  ways  to  secure  national 
independence.  The  party  afterwards  called  Zealots, 
whose  creed  was  literally  militarism  in  excelsis ,  preached 
that  if  they  went  out  and  died  fighting,  God,  a  military 
power,  would  send  forth  Elis  angels  to  fill  up  their 
ranks  and  bring  their  foes  to  naught.  The  Pharisees 
and  Scribes  believed  that  God  would  bring  about  a 
miraculous  turning  of  the  tables  if  only  the  exactions 
of  the  law  were  scrupulously  respected.  The  godly 
Hellenists  and  worldly  Herodians  were  for  admitting 
the  culture  of  the  Empire  and  making  peace  with  it. 
And  between  all  these  sects  the  masses  of  the  people 
were  indifferent  to  high  endeavour  ;  while  the  very 
symbol  and  centre  of  the  pure  worship  of  Jahveh — 
the  Temple — was  controlled  by  the  vested  interests  of 
greedy  officials  and  their  sycophants. 

As  we  have  seen,  the  Book  of  Malachi  set  forth  the 
great  hope  which  Pharisaism  had  afterwards  embodied, 
that  if  the  ritual  exactions  of  the  Levitical  law  were 
kept,  Jahveh  would  certainly  show  Himself  strong  on 
behalf  of  His  people.  But  it  was  long  since  Malachi 
wrote,  and  his  plan  of  salvation  had  failed  :  the  law  had 
not  been  kept  except  by  a  few,  and  the  keeping  of  it 
had  not  made  those  few  into  ideal  characters.  The 
Baptist  seems  to  have  thought  that  if  the  humani¬ 
tarian  side  of  the  law  1  were  emphasized  and  obeyed, 
Godwould  rise  in  His  power  for  His  own  honour  and  the 
deliverance  of  His  people.  There  was  no  better 
opinion  than  this.  Its  substance  had  come  down 
through  all  the  apocalyptic  writings,  and  is  made 
especially  attractive  in  the  Testaments  of  the  Twelve 
Patriarchs.  It  is  also  seen  in  the  Wisdom  of  Ben-Sir  a 

1  Luke  iii.  11-14. 

128 


NEW  IDEAS  OF  GOD  AND  MAN 


and  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon.  John  stood  out  as  the  very 
incarnation  of  the  best  that  Judaism  had  yet  produced  : 
and  while  he  preached,  Jesus  seems  to  have  remained 
quite  quiet,  no  doubt  thinking,  thinking  with  all  the 
human  power  with  which  he  was  endowed. 

What  he  must  have  thought  about  we  know  in  part  What  any 

from  the  doubts  and  questions  that  beset  other  thought-  je^^ght 

ful  Jews  of  this  century.  We  know  how  inadequate  have  felt  in 

.  .  this  crisis 

the  law  seemed  to  young  Saul  the  Pharisee  in  his  quest 
of  salvation  by  its  means.  We  have  seen  how  faulty 
God’s  justice  appeared  to  the  writer  of  the  Apocalypse 
of  Ezra ,  and  how  the  writer  of  the  Apocalypse  of 
Baruch  points  out  the  natural  frailty  and  hard  life 
of  the  common  people,  in  surprise  that  God  should 
exact  from  them  the  keeping  of  the  law.  We  have 
seen  that  they  were  impressed  by  the  inadequacy  of 
God’s  power  to  save  the  world.  And  these  men  must 
have  represented  the  thoughts  of  hundreds. 

Any  earnest-minded  Jew  of  the  period  would  have 
been  apt  to  argue  in  this  way  :  If,  as  the  prophets 
had  long  ago  said,  the  humanitarian  requirements 
of  the  law  were  far  more  important  than  all  its  ritual, 
it  was  impossible  that  God  should  ever  divide  the 
righteous  from  the  unrighteous  on  the  ground  of 
ritual  observance  and  non-observance — certainly  not 
by  such  a  new  ritual  test  as  the  baptism  of  John. 

But  if  no  ritual  observance  could  secure  salvation, 
salvation  must  involve  something  more  than  mere 
outward  action.  All  the  best  passages  in  the  Psalms 
and  prophets  said  this.  If,  then,  humanitarian  re¬ 
quirements  must  be  carried  into  the  inmost  thoughts 
of  the  heart,  all  its  imaginations  and  impulses  tested 
by  them,  who  would  be  found  amongst  the  righteous  ? 

129  1 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


If  none  were  good  but  all  evil,  it  would  be  no  longer 
suitable  to  look  round  and  divide  men  into  godly  and 
ungodly — to  judge  and  to  condemn ;  no  longer 
meritorious  to  go  about  correcting  the  errors  of  others, 
for  this  very  attitude  would  imply  a  worse  error — the 
assumption  of  goodness  and  conscious  superiority. 
In  that  case  even  the  best  sort  of  Pharisaism  stood 
condemned.  But  the  best,  as  well  as  the  worst,  of 
Judaic  moral  teaching  had  always  consisted  largely  of 
throwing  stones  at  those  taken  in  transgression  or 
neglect  of  the  law.  If  none  were  without  sin,  this 
whole  attitude  of  stone-throwing,  of  denunciation,  was 
wrong. 

Still — such  a  Jew  would  argue — between  right  and 
wrong  there  must  always  be  the  difference  between 
light  and  darkness,  between  pleasing  and  displeasing 
God,  between  attaining  His  reward  or  being  punished 
by  Him.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  these  rewards  and 
these  punishments  had  been  set  forth  very  clearly 
now  for  many  centuries ;  and  their  object  must 
be  to  make  the  people  good.  But  the  people  were  not 
good  ;  nor  was  goodness  even  increasing.  The  fear 
of  punishment  did  not  seem  to  do  people  much  good. 

Such  a  Jew  might  then  ask  himself :  Did  the  law,  and 
all  the  belief  that  had  grown  up  around  it,  truly 
represent  God  ?  In  human  relationships  one  could  see 
that  the  best  results  on  character  were  not  brought 
about  by  rules  and  threats.  The  best  things  blossomed 
where,  between  man  and  man,  between  child  and 
father,  there  was  a  relation  of  mutual  trust ;  where 
nothing  was  said  about  obedience,  but  where  the  good 
in  one  attracted  and  developed  good  in  the  other. 
But  the  average  mind  would  recoil  from  doubt.  No, 

130 


NEW  IDEAS  OF  GOD  AND  MAN 


the  law  was  revealed  ;  it  was  too  dangerous  to  criticize 
it.  God’s  ways  were  inscrutable.  It  was  necessary  to 
bow  before  them  in  humble  submission  ;  but,  alas  for 
man  !  the  law  is  spiritual,  but  he  is  carnal,  sold  under 
sin  ;  for  in  his  flesh  dwelleth  no  good  thing.  The 
good  which  he  would  he  does  not,  and  the  evil  which  he 
wills  not  to  do,  that  he  does.  “  What  advantage  is 
there  that  there  is  promised  to  us  an  immortal  time, 
wdiereas  we  have  done  the  works  that  bring  death  ? 

And  that  there  hath  been  made  known  to  us  an  im¬ 
perishable  hope,  whereas  we  miserably  are  brought  to 
futility  ?  And  that  the  glory  of  the  Most  High  is 
destined  to  protect  them  who  have  lived  chastely, 
whereas  we  proceed  in  wicked  ways  ?  ”  1  So  lamented 
Salathiel.  So  Saul,  the  ardent  Jew,  seems  to  have 
felt  before  he  found  the  light. 

These  reasonings  were  in  the  thought  of  the  age. 

The  objection  that  we  modernize  Jesus  when  we  seek 
in  his  teaching  an  answer  to  these  questions  is  absurd  : 
on  all  sides  of  him  people  were  crying  out  for  an  answer. 

What  answer  did  Jesus  give  ? 

In  his  mature  teaching  we  may  find  suggestions  What  Jesus 
as  to  what  he  thought  before  he  realized  the  full  thouglrtTn 
message  that  he  had  to  bring  to  the  world.  What  his  youth, 
was  his  attitude  as  a  boy  to  the  birds  and  the  flowers 
in  the  country  about  him  ?  Many  boys  with  atavistic 
impulse  go  about  killing  and  crushing  living  things, 
heedless  of  their  beauty  ;  but  evidently  Jesus  possessed 
*he  highly  developed  humane  temperament  of  the  artist 
and  poet.  He  had  watched  wild  things  with  delight 
and  felt  reverence  for  their  careless  perfection.  He 
had  seen  them  struck  down  and  felt  tender  compassion. 

1  Apocalypse  of  Ezra,  vii.  1 19-120. 

131 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 

He  had  taken  a  dead  sparrow  in  his  hand — its  little 
song  just  over  ;  its  little  eye  just  dimmed  ;  all  the 
beautiful  order  and  iridescence  of  its  feathers  still 
warm  and  perfect.  What  was  God’s  relation  to  it  ? 
Was  it  struck  down  a9  a  punishment  for  some  fault  ? 
No,  that  was  not  the  explanation.  Was  it  God’s  will, 
then,  that  it  should  die  ?  One  thing  was  at  least 
certain  :  that  its  beauty  and  life  were  of  God,  that  it 
must  be  dear  to  Him  as  a  part  of  His  creation  ;  for  His 
interest,  His  compassion,  could  not  fail.  When  the 
scythe  cut  down  the  lovely  field  lilies  with  the  grass, 
when  they  became  withered  and  unsightly,  and  were 
stuffed  into  the  earthen  ovens  to  be  burned,  what  was 
God’s  relation  to  that  ?  Certainly  he  cared  for  their 
beauty.  Certainly  they  were  not  struck  down  for  any 
fault  of  theirs ;  their  fate  was  no  punishment.  And 
God  must  also  pity  the  poor  who  needed  them  for 
fuel.  Yet  in  some  way  the  life  of  the  lily  must  be  dear 
to  Him  who  clothed  it  in  its  transient  beauty.  There 
was  another  crop  more  beautiful  than  the  lilies, 
another  race  of  living  things  more  precious  than  birds. 
It  grew  up  in  every  village — the  children,  in  whose 
joyous,  innocent  eyes  one  seemed  to  catch  a  glimpse 
of  angels  beholding  the  face  of  God.  As  they  grew  up 
they  lost  the  innocence,  and  often  the  joy.  Some  of 
them  succumbed  to  sudden  temptation  and  never 
regained  the  power  to  look  honestly  in  the  face  of  a 
friend.  And  some  gradually  hardened,  becoming  more 
and  more  remote  from  what  had  seemed  the  holy 
possibilities  of  their  childhood.  What  was  God’s  rela¬ 
tion  to  this  ?  If  a  friend  went  ever  so  kindly  and  spoke 
to  such  men  and  women,  what  was  their  reply  ?  They 
did  not  seem  able  to  cope  with  the  evil  without  them 

132 


NEW  IDEAS  OF  GOD  AND  MAN 


and  within,  or  they  did  not  seem  able  to  want  to  cope 
with  it,  which  was  the  same  thing.  But  if  the  character 
had  been  built  better  from  the  first  this  downfall 
would  not  have  happened.  The  ruin  of  the  child- 
nature  was  like  the  ruin  of  a  badly  built  house  in  a 
spring  flood.  Was  not  the  downfall  itself  perdition  ? 
And  were  the  forces  that  brought  it  about  of  God  ? 
Did  God,  even  then,  hate  the  thing  that  He  had  made, 
wicked  and  unrepentant  as  it  was  ?  Or  did  He  feel  for 
it  the  infinite  compassion  with  which  He  must  encom¬ 
pass  the  withered  lilies  and  the  dead  birds  ? 

There  were  others  who  kept  the  childlike  sincerity  in 
their  eyes,  and  added  to  it  the  virtues  of  mature  life. 
Was  their  best  characteristic  innocence  ?  Most  of 
them  had  many  faults  and  failings ;  yet  though  neither 
scrupulous  for  legal  exactions  nor  ethically  faultless, 
they  were  forces  for  good  in  the  community.  The 
two  or  three  men  and  women  in  the  village  who  really 
helped  most  to  make  other  people  good  helped  them  in 
all  sorts  of  earthly  ways,  little  and  big,  and  were  them¬ 
selves  very  good  company  and  light-hearted.  Their 
natures  were  such  that  they  never  even  noticed  small 
affronts  or  injuries  ;  they  were  not  quick  to  mark  what 
was  amiss;  they  never  harboured  a  grievance.  Yet 
such  men  and  women  were  the  cheer  and  the  wit  that 
kept  the  village  life  from  being  insipid,  the  light  that 
showed  the  groping  souls  about  them  how  better  to 
live.  What  was  God’s  attitude  ?  Were  the  faults  and 
failings  and  even  the  brutalities  of  the  community  of 
much  importance  compared  with  the  cultivation  of 
that  something  which  helped  people  to  rise  out  of 
them,  helped  the  young  men  to  keep  the  look  of 
sincerity  in  their  faces  in  spite  of  disobedience  to 


A  new  value 
for  man 
involved  a 
new  valua¬ 
tion  of 
women. 


133 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


parents  and  times  of  riotous  living,  something  that  could 
reinstate  young  women,  even  when  they  had  wandered 
far  in  wrong  ways  ?  If  this  was  true  in  village  life, 
was  it  not  true  also  in  national  life  ?  The  best  of  the 
prophets,  in  their  highest  hours,  had  taught  that 
the  Jewish  nation  was  to  save  the  other  nations  and 
bring  them  to  God.  Not  by  legal  innocence  or  scrupu¬ 
lousness  could  this  be  done,  still  less  by  a  vindictive 
temper  or  the  temper  that  is  quick  to  mark  what  is 
amiss.  Only  by  an  outgoing  of  forgiving  generosity, 
nnly  by  inspired  wit,  and  a  hold  upon  the  joy  and  power 
of  God  such  as  nothing  can  dismay,  could  a  nation 
serve  the  world.  If  that  were  the  only  policy  that 
could  save  the  world,  must  not  that  be  the  policy  of 
God  towards  men  ? 

If  this  were  true  God  could  not  be  a  legal  judge.  He 
could  not  be  seeking  innocence  as  the  sign  of  human 
worth,  but  rather  that  strength  of  character,  that 
quality  of  discernment,  which  grew  in  the  conflict  of 
life.  He  would  not  undervalue  the  wheat  of  virtue 
because  mingled  with  the  tares  of  fault  and  failing.  He 
must  mark  all  that  was  wrong — that  was  true  ;  but  not 
with  intention  of  vengeance,  only  with  the  will  to  help 
the  wrong-doer.  And  mankind  must  be  of  great 
value  to  God,  costing  so  much  patience.  All  men 
and  women  must  have  great  possibilities  in  them  if 
thus  by  God’s  patience  they  could  be  made  great.1 

Such  thoughts  of  God’s  infinite  compassion  towards 
His  righteous  favourites  had  been  expressed  by  prophets 
and  psalmists.  If  the  mind  of  Jesus  leaped  to  the 
belief  that  all  men  equally  shared  the  appreciative  and 
patient  love  of  the  Father  of  all ;  if  he  believed  that 

1  Psa.  xviii.  35.  |  ^ 

134 


NEW  IDEAS  OF  GOD  AND  MAN 


no  man  was  righteous,  for  none  could  compare  with 
God  in  love  of  right ;  that  no  man  was  ever  godless  in 
the  sense  of  being  abandoned  by  God,  he  was  only 
carrying  forward  the  best  thought  of  his  race,  adding 
to  it  conclusions  for  which  the  village  life  around 
him  could  have  afforded  him  the  data  ;  how  much 
he  could  add  to  earlier  doctrine  is  seen  in  his  new 
valuation  of  women.1  If,  as  an  inference  from 
this  thought  of  God  and  man,  he  believed  it  to  be  the 
mission  of  his  nation,  by  being  as  the  God-like  friend 
of  all,  to  bring  about  for  itself  and  the  world  an  inter¬ 
national  salvation,  he  was  only  finding  a  rational  path 
to  the  goal  already  seen  by  the  greatest  prophets  of  his 
race. 

1  Chap.  v.  p.  66  ft. 


CHAPTER  XII 

SALVATION  INTERNATIONAL  BECAUSE  NATIONAL 

It  must  always  be  remembered  that  God,  to  the  people 
to  whom  Jesus  preached,  meant  the  God  of  the  Jews, 
not  Zeus  or  the  God  of  any  other  nation.  They 
believed  their  God  to  be  the  God  of  all  the  earth, 
and  that  the  divinities  of  the  Gentiles  were  not  true 
gods.  This  great  God  was  their  own  national  God, 
unrecognized  as  yet  by  any  but  Jews,  proselytes  and 
God-fearers. 

We  shall  now  seek  to  justify  the  statement  that  the 
repentance  preached  by  Jesus  was  a  national  change  of 
mental  attitude  and  of  conduct.  He  foretold  a 
universal  salvation,  allying  himself  with  the  great 
prophets 1 ;  and  the  reformation  he  preached  was  to  be 
an  international  salvation  because  it  was  first  national. 
In  the  same  sense  his  reformation  was  intended  to  be 
national  because  it  was  first  individual.  The  individual 
was  to  win  his  soul  by  acting  always  as  it  behoved  a 
member  of  the  nation  to  act — acting  as  he  told  them 
their  God  acted.  A  nation  of  men  thus  acting  was  to 
win  the  world,  to  be  the  stone  that  “  cut  without 
hands  ”  would  smite  and  change  the  world-order. 

1  E.g.  Isa.  xi.  io;  xix.  23-25;  xlix.  6;  Zech.  viii.  20-23. 

136 


SALVATION  INTERNATIONAL 


We  miss  the  tremendous  force  of  the  contrast  Jewish 
between  Jesus  and  John,  and  all  the  apocalyptic  teachers  akin 
who  were  the  forerunners  of  John,  if  we  do  not  realize  national 
that  it  was  the  salvation  of  the  nation — or  what  in 
this  instance  is  the  same  thing,  the  Jewish  Church — 
with  which  they  were  all  concerned.  John  taught 
that  the  Jews  had  only  to  be  forgiven  by  God  to  be 
saved  :  Jesus  taught  that  salvation  consisted  in  for¬ 
giving  and  blessing  the  inimical  world. 

The  distinction  between  individual  and  national 
morality,  so  much  considered  since  nationalism  came  to 
its  present  emphasis  in  Western  Christendom,  was  not  a 
possible  thought  to  a  Jew  of  that  time.  To  attribute 
it  to  Jesus  is  to  make  him  modern  indeed.  The  rela¬ 
tion  was  more  like  that  later  relationship  of  the  indivi¬ 
dual  Christian  to  the  Church  or  to  his  branch  of  the 
Church.  Thus,  in  the  Middle  Ages,  when  heretics 
were  persecuted  by  the  Church,  there  was  no  difference 
recognized  between  the  attitude  and  temper  of  the 
Church  and  what  ought  to  be  the  attitude  and  temper 
of  the  ideal  Catholic  towards  the  heretic.  If  it  was 
the  duty  of  the  Church  to  torture  and  burn,  it  was 
the  duty  of  the  Christian,  high  or  low,  to  become  in¬ 
former  and  approve  the  execution.  Also  let  us  note 
that  there  could  be  no  possible  enlightenment  for  the 
Catholic  Church  on  this  subject  except  by  the  cumula¬ 
tive  enlightenment  of  individuals.  When  a  sufficient 
number  of  Catholics — priests  and  laymen — gained 
another  outlook,  the  change  of  the  Church’s  attitude 
became  ideally  at  once  the  duty  of  every  individual. 

But  it  is  doubtful  whether,  after  the  size  of  the  Church 
became  unwieldy,  the  ideal  of  duty  for  individual 
Catholic  and  Church  was  ever  as  fully  realized  as,  in  the 

137 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


The  Judaic 
Church  was 
undergoing 
a  crisis  in 
the  first 
century. 


Palestine  of  our  epoch,  was  this  identity  of  duty  between 
Jew  and  Jewish  nation.  No  Jewish  prophet  or  seer  evei 
preached  an  individual  morality  that  was  not  also  a 
national  morality,  or  a  national  duty  of  which  the 
obligation  did  not  fall  on  every  Jew. 

Certainly  at  this  time  the  claims  of  Imperial 
Rome  were  such  as  to  force  on  the  serious-minded  Jew 
the  problem  of  the  relation  of  Jahveh  to  the  whole 
world.  The  home-keeping  Jew  might  consign  the 
whole  foreign  world  to  destruction,  but  the  Hellenic 
Jew  was  less  fanatical.  Through  Galilee,  where  Jesus 
lived,  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  streamed  to  Jerusalem 
with  offerings  for  the  Temple.  Going  and  returning, 
wherever  they  halted  they  must  have  talked  much 
of  the  world-outlook  to  their  fellow  Jews.  Men  dele¬ 
gated  to  carry  the  offerings  of  foreign  communities  to 
Jerusalem  would  be  persons  of  intelligence  and  weight. 
Such  men  from  Rome,  Syracuse,  Byzantium,  Corinth, 
Ephesus,  could  have  had  no  illusions  about  any  triumph 
of  Jewish  arms  or  any  world- wide  political  authority 
of  the  Jewish  state,  and  it  is  likely  that  to  most  of  them 
the  supernatural  scene-shifting  of  apocalyptic  was  not 
a  belief  of  practical  application.  Such  travellers  must 
have  been  keenly  anxious  for  their  nation’s  safety  when 
they  came  in  contact  with  the  ominous  temper  of  the 
home-staying  Pharisees  and  the  Siccarii  who  made  for 
armed  revolt.  The  Pharisees  harboured  a  sullen  ex¬ 
pectation  of  God’s  vengeance  on  Rome,  a  temper 
not  compatible  with  conciliation.  The  Siccarii,  mad¬ 
dened  perhaps  by  news  of  fresh  divine  honours  paid  to 
Augustus,  were  even  now  reviving  and  augmenting  all 
the  national  and  religious  antagonisms  against  the 
Gentiles,  which  a  few  years  later  were  to  bring  about 

13S 


SALVATION  INTERNATIONAL 


the  destruction  of  the  state  with  the  suicide  of  their 
own  sect.  The  warning,  “  except  ye  experience  a 
change  of  mind  ye  shall  all  perish,”  must  have  been 
frequently  spoken  by  the  wise  Jews  from  overseas  to 
their  brothers  in  Jerusalem  who  looked  out  on  all  the 
kingdoms  of  the  world  and  the  glory  of  them  believing 
that  God  would  give  them  to  the  Jews  if  only  He  were 
properly  worshipped  through  obedience  to  the  law 
or  in  the  heroism  of  battle.  The  young  Jesus,  going 
and  coming  from  the  great  yearly  feast  at  Jerusalem, 
would  not  have  been  intelligent  had  he  failed  to  master 
the  outlook  of  these  travellers. 

“  The  Jew  of  that  time,  indeed,  knew  no  distinction  between 
national  and  individual  salvation.  The  law  and  the  prophets 
had  merged  individual  in  national  welfare  ;  and  it  is  only 
necessary  to  read  the  Jewish  literature  of  the  two  centuries 
preceding,  and  of  the  time  contemporary  with,  the  life  of  Jesus 
to  be  assured  that  the  national  ideal  and  interest  was  still  the 
main  thing  emphasized.  The  salvation  of  the  whole  world, 
if  it  was  to  be  saved,  or  of  such  part  of  it  as  might  be  saved, 
depended,  according  to  the  Jewish  seers,  upon  submission  to  the 
divine  Law  that  governed  the  Jewish  state.  The  salvation  of 
the  Jewish  nation  itself  depended  upon  the  zealous  loyalty 
of  its  members  to  the  national  king,  who  was  none  other  than 
Jehovah.”  1 

I  quote  from  Mr  Montefiore  upon  the  state  of  the 
Jewish  mind  in  the  first  century  : 

“  The  laws  of  the  nation  were  also  its  religious  doctrines  and 
its  ceremonial  rites.  Politics  and  religion  were  closely  blended. 
The  greatest  religious  hope  was  also  the  greatest  political  hope, 
the  greatest  national  hope.  .  .  .  But  though  the  God  whom  the 
Jews  worshipped  was  in  a  special  sense  their  God,  their  national 
God,  he  was  also  much  more.  He  was  the  only  God  ;  the  one 
and  unique  God  ;  the  God  of  the  whole  world.  But  such  a 
1  The  present  writer  in  Hibbert  Journal,  October  1921,  p.  114. 

T39 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


universal  God  required  a  universal  cult.  .  .  .  There  is  evidence 
that  outside  Palestine,  and  to  some  extent  also  within  it,  there 
was  a  considerable  amount  of  propagandist  fervour,  crowned 
with  a  considerable  amount  of  success.  .  .  .  Yet  there  was 
always  a  certain  difficulty  about  proselytes,  and  a  school  of 
thought  existed  which  was  opposed  to  them,  for  the  convert 
had  not  only  to  adopt  a  new  religion,  but  a  new  nationality. 
The  Jews  were  proud  of  their  monotheistic  religion.  In  a 
sense  they  were  keen  to  push  it  and  to  proclaim  its  merits,  but 
they  were  hampered  by  their  nationalist  Law.  They  wanted  to 
stand  high  in  the  opinion  of  outsiders,  but  their  Law  to  a  con¬ 
siderable  degree  made  them  hostile  to  foreigners,  and  unable  and 
unwilling  to  associate  with  them.  To  this  Josephus  bears 
abundant  witness.  The  proselytism  which  many  of  them 
attempted  was  often,  as  it  would  seem,  undertaken  less  for  the 
benefit  of  the  heathen  than  for  the  glory  of  their  nation  or  the 
glorification  of  their  creed  and  Law.  .  .  1 


The  false 
hope  of  the 
destruction 
of  the 
Roman 
Empire. 


The  kingdom  of  God,  as  understood  by  most  Jews 
of  that  day,  was  a  kingdom  based  upon  the  downfall 
and  destruction  of  the  Roman  Empire.  The  destruc¬ 
tion  of  that  Empire  was  foretold  or  assumed  in  many 
Messianic  predictions.  Even  when  the  final  conversion 
and  salvation  of  the  Gentiles  was  coupled  with  the  com¬ 
ing  of  the  kingdom,  it  was  only  a  faithful  remnant  of 
the  Gentiles  that  were  thought  of  as  saved,  after  all 
who  represented  the  power  of  the  oppressor  had  been 
destroyed.  The  hope  of  the  kingdom  rested  upon  the 
conviction  that  it  was  God’s  intention  to  avenge  the 
wrongs  of  His  people  and  destroy  their  enemies  and  His. 
They  had  not  conceived  of  a  God  who  could  forgive  His 
enemies  and  theirs ;  whose  very  nature  it  was  to  be 
forgiving ;  whose  power  was  not  the  futile  power  of 
punishment,  but  the  supreme  power  of  irresistible 
attraction. 


1  The  Synoptic  Gospels,  Introd.  §  36. 
I4.O 


SALVATION  INTERNATIONAL 


When  Jesus  in  his  preaching  of  the  kingdom  said,  The  only 
“  Love  your  enemies,  that  ye  may  be  the  children  of  fay^the 

your  Father  which  is  in  heaven,”  his  words  must  be  conversion 

,  .  .  ,  ,  ,  ....  of  Rome, 

taken  as  m  antithesis  to  many  other  words  on  which  the 

pious  soul  of  the  nation  was  feeding — such  words  as : 

“  Then  shall  the  great  kingdom  of  the  immortal  king  appear 
among  men,  and  a  holy  king  shall  come  who  shall  have  rule 
over  the  whole  earth  for  all  ages  of  the  course  of  time.  Then 
shall  implacable  wrath  fall  upon  the  men  of  Latium  ;  three  men 
shall  ravage  Rome  with  pitiable  affliction  ;  and  all  men  shall 
perish  beneath  their  own  roof-tree,  when  the  torrent  of  fire 
shall  flow  down  from  heaven.  Ah,  wretched  me,  when  shall 
that  day  come,  and  the  judgment  of  immortal  God,  the  great 
king  ?  ” — Sibylline  Oracles ,  Book  III.  46-56  (a  Jewish  section). 

They  could  not  forgive  while  God  would  deal  thus 
with  their  oppressors  : 

“  I  beheld  till  the  thrones  were  cast  down  and  the  Ancient  of 
Days  did  sit.  .  .  .  The  Judgment  was  set  and  the  books  were 
opened.  ...  I  beheld  even  till  the  beast  was  slain,  and  his  body 
destroyed  and  given  to  the  burning  flame.  As  concerning  the 
rest  of  the  beasts,  their  dominion  was  taken  away.” — Daniel  vii. 

9-12. 

It  is  true  that  several  writers  had  taught  that  as 
brethren  the  Israelites  should  live  at  perfect  peace 
with  one  another  1 ;  but  the  reason  given  was  not  that 
forgiveness  in  the  abstract  was  higher  than  avenging 
justice  ;  nor  were  they  asked  to  forgive  that  wicked 
world  which  God  was  bound  to  punish.2 

There  were,  perhaps,  three  minds  in  the  nation  at 
the  time  of  Christ.  Some — the  large  sect  of  the 
Pharisees — said,  Be  patient  with  your  national  enemies 

1  E.g.  Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs — Gad.  vi.  3-7. 

8  E.g.  Apocalypse  of  Ezra,  viii.  35  ff. 

H1 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Conversion 
of  enemies 
can  only  be 
wrought  by 
love. 


because  God  will  not  forgive  but  will  avenge.  In  the 
light  of  psychological  fact  this  attitude  is  not  an  atti¬ 
tude  of  forgiveness  at  all,  but  only  of  peaceable  conduct 
and  ominous  resignation.  Others — the  small  and 
scattered  Hellenist  party — said,  There  is  so  much  good 
in  the  religion  of  your  enemies :  come  to  a  compromise 
with  them  because  God  has  evidently  done  so.  Others 
— afterwards  called  the  Zealots — said,  No  compromise  ; 
no  waiting  for  God  to  act ;  up  !  and  punish  your 
enemies,  and  God  will  punish  them  through  you. 
They  could  not  understand  how  it  might  be  possible  to 
be  friendly  with  the  ungodly  without  compromising 
divine  righteousness. 

If  we  take  what  is  most  distinctive  and  salient  in  such 
teaching  of  Jesus  as  comes  down  to  us,  is  it  not  clear 
that  he  superseded  all  these  doctrines  by  a  new 
teaching  concerning  God’s  holiness  and  the  universal 
duty  of  mankind  ?  He  also  said,  No  compromis 
for  “  salvation  is  of  the  Jews.”  He  also  said,  No 
waiting  for  God  to  act ;  there  is  not  an  hour  to  be  lost 
The  note  of  urgency  is  in  all  his  ministry.  The  thing 
to  be  done,  he  said,  is  to  forgive  your  enemies  because 
God  forgives  them.  To  forgive,  to  serve  and  by 
serving  to  reinstate,  is  divine  righteousness.  Forgive¬ 
ness  means  beneficent  action  :  go  out  to  your  enemies 
with  generous  gifts  and  service  ;  share  your  spiritual 
and  worldly  goods  with  them  to  the  utmost  because 
God  gives  without  measure  to  them  and  to  you.  This 
is  what  the  records  say  that  Jesus  said  1  ;  and  if  he 
had  great  insight  he  must  have  said  these  things,  for 

1  Matt.  v.  38-48.  Luke  vi.  27-38.  Matt,  xviii.  21-34.  In  this  last 
parable  the  Jews,  because  they  know  God's  will,  are  clearly  represented 
as  owing  more  to  God  than  their  oppressors  owe  to  them  :  verse  35  is 
a  later  addition  in  Matthew's  style. 

I42 


SALVATION  INTERNATIONAL 


we  can  all  see  now,  indeed,  that  only  thus  could  the 
theocratic  state  of  the  Jews  be  established  on  earth, 
and  only  thus  could  the  Jewish  nation  keep,  in  the  city 
of  the  true  God,  the  home  base  of  their  great  mission¬ 
ary  work.  I  hope  to  make  this  clearer  in  detail. 

Dr  Burkitt  says : 

“  In  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  we  have  announcements  of 
divine  vengeance  upon  the  enemies  of  Israel,  but  it  is  all 
piecemeal  and  detached.  In  Daniel,  on  the  other  hand, 
there  is  a  philosophy  of  universal  history  :  4  The  great  Gentile 
kingdoms,  like  the  Greek  supremacy  of  the  Seleucids  and 
Ptolemies,  which  seemed  so  overwhelming  and  terrible,  are  shown 
as  phases  in  a  world-process  whose  end  is  the  kingdom  of  God  9 
[Revan].  Even  now  4  the  Most  High  ruleth  in  the  kingdom 
of  men,  and  giveth  it  to  whomsoever  He  will  ’  (Dan.  iv.  17). 
Intensely  patriotic  as  was  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Daniel , 
there  is  something  cosmopolitan  about  his  outlook  on  the 
world.  The  stone  cut  out  without  hands  does  not  merely  claim 
the  right  to  exist :  it  is  the  conscious  rival  of  the  Imperial 
Statue.  In  other  words,  Judaism  is  to  the  author  of  Daniel 
a  cosmic  world-religion,  and  that  not  merely  by  detached 
and  occasional  glimpses,  but  consciously  and  all  the  time.”  1 


We  thus  see  that  Judaism  was  conceived  as  including 
both  the  state  and  also  the  Church  of  God.  “  If  I 
forget  thee,  O  Jerusalem,  let  my  right  hand  forget  her 
cunning  ”  was  equivalent  to  ardour  for  God  and  God’s 
cause.  In  the  minds  of  the  crowds  that  gathered 
round  Jesus  to  hear  him  there  was  one  question,  one 
desire,  How  shall  we,  as  God’s  nation,  be  saved  ? 
God  grant  salvation  to  Israel !  Each  man,  each 
woman,  felt  his  own,  her  own,  salvation  to  be  bound 
up  in  that  of  Israel. 

If  we  think  of  eager  groups  in  this  temper  surround- 


1  Jewish  and  Christian  Apocalypses,  p.  7. 


143 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


The  crowds 
to  which 
Jesus 
preached 
were  con¬ 
cerned  for 
the  national 
peril. 


in g  Jesus,  and  read  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and 
other  teaching  as  addressed  to  their  state  of  mind,  we 
shall  see  how  gratuitous  is  the  assertion  of  later  times 
that  it  is  the  preaching  of  an  individual  escape,  a  setting 
up  of  a  spiritual  community  without  reference  to  the 
hopes  and  cherished  nationalism  of  Israel.  With  the 
magnificent  history  of  their  Church-State  behind  them, 
men  who  at  this  juncture  would  have  given  it  up  for 
lost  could  not  have  been  addressed  as  “  the  salt  of  the 
earth.”  If  their  concern  was  for  Judaism  they  could 
only  be  addressed  collectively  as  representing  it.  Thus 
read,  the  Sermon,  omitting  Matt.  v.  18,  a  text  of  doubt¬ 
ful  authenticity,  is  a  collection  of  campaigning  orders. 

The  crowds  that  gather  round  an  evangelist  in  Hyde 
Park  come  with  some  more  or  less  distinct  desire  for 
personal  safety,  just  as  the  wistful  Gentiles  of  the  first 
century  gathered  round  the  Jewish  synagogue  or  round 
the  preachers  of  the  Mystery  cults.  But  the  recent 
war  has  taught  us  that  crowds  can  gather  round  a 
preacher  of  religion  in  a  very  different  temper.  In 
those  gloomiest  moments  of  the  late  war  when  the 
enemy  seemed  within  easy  reach  of  Calais  and  thence  of 
Kent,  London  crowds,  in  churches  and  outside  of  them, 
were  eager  to  know  what  they,  as  part  of  the  nation, 
could  do  to  move  God  to  intervene  on  their  behalf. 
We  all  know,  because  we  have  witnessed  it,  that  in 
time  of  national  danger,  even  in  Western  Europe  and 
in  the  twentieth  century,  religion  and  patriotism  are 
merged  in  one  another. 

Let  us  remind  ourselves  here  that  from  the  Jewish 
race  all  unpatriotic  stock  had  been  sifted  again  and 
again.  In  the  Babylonian  exile  it  was  only  ardent 
patriotism  that  caused  Jews  to  remain — to  their  own 

H4 


SALVATION  INTERNATIONAL 


detriment — Jews.  In  the  persecution  under  Antio- 
chus ;  in  the  Hellenizing  influences  that  surrounded 
Jerusalem  under  the  High  Priests  ;  in  the  many  be- 
guilements  that  encompassed  the  Jews  of  the  Disper¬ 
sion  in  all  parts ;  it  was  only  those  men  in  whom  race 
and  religion  had  become  one  loyalty  who  resisted  the 
steady  pull  of  surrounding  influences.  For  we  must 
remember  that  their  nation  was  very  insignificant  and 
despised  in  the  eyes  of  the  world  ;  all  that  belonged  to 
the  pride  of  life  was  always  enticing  their  young  men 
and  their  maidens  to  marry  as  did  pretty  Jessica,  and 
cease  to  be  Jews.  Therefore  the  Jews  who  for  genera¬ 
tions,  in  Babylon  and  elsewhere,  had  resisted  this 
pressure  were  by  inheritance  intense  nationalists. 
With  such  peculiar  inheritance,  would  Belgians  when 
Germans  occupied  their  land,  would  members  of 
Sinn  Fein  before  Ireland  was  a  Free  State,  have  hung 
upon  the  words  of  a  prophet  who  did  not  tell  them  how 
to  set  their  nation  free  ? 

As  a  nation  the  Jews  were  poor,  peaceable  because  it 
was  not  safe  to  be  otherwise,  despised,  rejected, 
hungry  and  thirsty  for  justice  on  earth,  holding 
fast  to  the  vision  of  the  one  righteous  Judge.  They 
looked  forward  to  being  in  the  future  blessed,  filled, 
satisfied  with  all  that  was  good.  Jesus  told  them 
that  here  and  now  all  they  desired  was  theirs  by  the 
blessing  of  God  in  pure,  spiritual  possession.  If,  as  a 
nation,  they  would  practise  not  only  a  universal 
generosity  but  a  high  inward  morality,  they  would  be 
as  u  the  stone  cut  out  without  hands  ” — a  new  civiliza¬ 
tion  supplanting  the  Roman  civilization.  They  were 
now  the  salt  of  the  earth,  the  light  of  the  human 
household,  the  city  of  God  upon  the  hill  of  truth  ; 

H5  k 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


but  they  could  only  become  so  effectually  by  accepting 
a  new  mission  of  great  generosity  and  purer  life. 

We  have  seen  that  Jewish  thought  stated  clearly 

the  problems  of  divine  power  and  justice  ;  and  though 

it  failed  to  reach  the  solution  which  Jesus  presented, 

it  is  but  one  step  in  thought  from  the  lamentations  over 

the  miscarriage  of  God’s  supposed  justice  and  the  inade- 

The  answer  quacy  of  God’s  power,  which  we  find  in  these  Jewish 

the^problem  writers,  to  the  solution  :  God  is  not  like  that.  Jesus 

raised  by  perceived  that  the  adverse  criticism  of  what  from 
apocalyptic.  r 

time  immemorial  had  been  called  “  divine  justice  ” 
came  from  the  best  that  is  in  man,  and  was  in  harmony 
with  that  vision  of  infinite  compassion  and  goodwill 
which  intense  communion  with  God  has  always  given. 

%  It  belongs  to  the  genius  of  all  true  mystic  experience  to 

\  perceive  by  direct  intuition  that  God  is  love.  It 

belonged  to  the  genius  of  Jesus  alone  to  perceive  what 
that  truth  implies. 

Jerusalem,  had  she  grasped  the  universal  grace  of 
Qod  as  embodied  in  the  highest  hopes  of  Jeremiah, 
the  Second  Isaiah  and  the  Book  of  Jonah ,  or  more  fully 
in  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  would  have  been  a  centre  of 
missionary  light  which  the  scattered  and  ill-educated 
Church  of  the  first  Christian  centuries  sadly  lacked.1 
We  cannot  doubt  that  the  salvation  of  the  Jewish 
Church  from  false  doctrine  and  irrelevant  ritual, 
which  knowledge  of  God’s  true  character  alone  could 
'•'  give,  was  at  first  the  hope,  and  always  the  passionate 
desire,  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  But  knowing — as  the 
fanatical  mind  never  does — what  is  in  men,  he  knew  that 
the  expression  of  the  national  religious  mind  could  only 


1  Cf.  essay  by  Canon  Streeter,  “Christ  the  Constructive  Revolu¬ 
tionary,”  in  The  Spirit. 


146 


SALVATION  INTERNATIONAL 


be  changed  by  the  conversion  of  individuals,  singly  and 
in  groups.  All  permanent  reforms  in  the  world  have 
come  about  in  this  way.  The  conversion  of  the  indi¬ 
vidual  soul  is  of  supreme  importance  ;  but  not  simply 
as  an  end,  rather  as  a  means  to  the  conversion  of  the 
community,  for  only  in  a  converted  community  can  the 
individual  find  the  full  expression  of  heavenly  life. 

When,  therefore,  Jesus  taught  the  forgiveness  of  charitable 
enemies,  the  iniquity  of  judging  one’s  fellow-men,1  an  barter^11* 
the  absurdity  of  trying  to  correct  their  vision  when  national 
the  vision  of  the  would-be  correctors  was  obscured  by  necessit^ ' 
conceited  ignorance  of  the  true  character  of  God,2 
he  was  not  mainly  teaching  what  ought  to  happen 
between  brother  and  brother  in  one  nation  or  between 
friend  and  friend  in  some  isolated  assembly  of  the  elect 
—that  peaceable  conduct  was  a  duty  in  such  cases  had 
already  been  amply  taught  among  the  Jews — he  was 
teaching  the  right  individual  attitude  towards  every 
enemy,  personal  or  national,  and  the  right  national 
attitude  towards  an  enemy  nation. 

“  Agree  with  thine  adversary  quickly  whiles  thou 
art  in  the  way  with  him,  lest  at  any  time  thine  adver¬ 
sary  deliver  thee  to  the  judge  and  the  judge  deliver 
thee  to  the  officer  and  thou  be  cast  into  prison.  Verily 
I  say  unto  thee,  thou  shalt  not  come  out  thence 
till  thou  hast  paid  the  uttermost  farthing.”  3  This 
quick  agreement  with  Rome  was  the  only  policy 
by  which  the  Jewish  state  could  have  escaped  destruc¬ 
tion  ;  but  it  is  a  parable  that,  on  the  face  of  it, 
would  be  immoral  if  it  related  merely  to  avoiding 
suffering  under  some  penal  code,  for  to  submit  to 
organized  injustice  out  of  fear  is  base.  Nothing  is 

1  Matt.  vii.  1-5.  2Matt.xv.  14.  3  Matt.  v.  25-26.  Cf.  Luke  xii.  58-59. 

147 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


better  known  about  adversaries  than  that  they  always 
suppose  themselves  entitled  to  more  than  they  ought  to 
have  ;  and  the  judge  here,  like  the  potentate  of  other 
parables,  represents  ex  hypo  the  si  the  law  of  conse¬ 
quence,  in  which  the  idea  of  justice  does  not  enter.1 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  heroic  to  submit  to  wrong  in 
order  to  overcome  the  wrong  with  good,  because  God 
also  submits  to  wrong  for  this  purpose.  The  above 
passage,  taken  as  referring  to  a  national  forgiveness  of 
the  Roman  power,  both  shows  moral  insight  and  points 
to  the  only  way  in  which  the  Jews  could  fulfil  their 
divine  destiny.  Thus,  and  thus  only,  could  the  ethical 
requirements  of  the  Jewish  law — a  law  on  its  ethical 
side  at  that  time  supremely  good — be  fulfilled.  There 
was  only  one  way  for  the  Jews  to  show  forth  the  good¬ 
ness  of  God  to  the  surrounding  nations  and  to  the 
Roman  power,  and  that  was  by  such  a  generous  out¬ 
flow  of  benevolence  that  friendliness  could  not  incur 
the  reproach  of  cowardice  or  servility.  Peace  2  was  a 
political  necessity,  but  to  be  a  peacemaker  simply 
because  it  was  the  best  policy  would  be  to  endeavour  to 
serve  both  God  and  Mammon.  To  make  peace  even 
with  the  unjust  from  the  splendid  motive  embodied 
in  the  prayer,  “  Thy  kingdom  come ;  thy  will  be 
done  in  earth  as  it  is  in  heaven  ;  give  us  only  the 
material  things  we  need  ;  forgive  us  our  sins  as  we 

1  The  usual  assumption  of  Christian  commentators,  that  the 
adversary  can  appeal  successfully  to  divine  justice,  is  one  of  those 
large  assumptions  for  which  there  is  no  evidence  ;  still  less  is  there  any 
reference  to  punishments  to  be  endured  after  death  in  a  Purgatory  in 
which  the  debt  of  sin  is  to  be  paid  off. 

2  The  modern  use  of  the  term  “pacificism,”  i.e.  the  doctrine  that  it 
is  always  wrong  to  fight,  is  not  relevant  here.  To  fight  may  conceiv¬ 
ably  be  a  duty  of  love  owed  to  an  irrational  opponent :  it  is  ill-temper, 
individual  or  national,  that  the  doctrine  of  forgiveness  invariably 
opposes. 

148 


SALVATION  INTERNATIONAL 


whole-heartedly  forgive  those  who  sin  against  us  ” — 
this  is  a  position  of  the  greatest  dignity  and  moral 
strength.  “  I  say  unto  you,  Love  your  enemies. 

Bless  them  that  curse  you.  Do  good  to  them  that 
hate  you,  and  pray  for  them  that  despitefully  use 
you  and  persecute  you,  that  you  may  be  seen  to  be 
the  children  of  God  who  acts  in  this  way  ”  1 — that 
was  the  distinctive  teaching  of  Jesus,  the  law  of  the 
theocracy  in  which  his  nation  must  find  its  national 
salvation.  The  argument  is  :  if  God  does  not  destroy 
evil  but  only  seeks  to  overcome  it  with  good,  then 
only  in  that  way  can  the  ultimate  good  come  about. 

Man,  after  all,  is  instinctively  godly.  He  can  never  Man  will 
whole-heartedly  seek  to  be  what  he  does  not  believe  ^fy8 

J  m  imitate 

that  God  is.  It  is  only  lack  of  knowledge  of  human  his  God. 
nature  that  has  allowed  any  religious  teacher  to  assume 
that  man  could  be  taught  to  forgive  where  God  did 
not  forgive,  or  to  refrain  from  cursing  in  his  heart  those 
accursed  of  God,  or  to  fail,  whenever  he  had  the  power, 
to  lift  his  hand  to  smite  those  whom  God  intended  to 
smite.  In  that  part  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  which 
represents  the  earliest  teaching,  Jesus  couples  with 
the  command  to  exercise  a  universal,  generous  benevo¬ 
lence  involving  complete  forgiveness  of  all  injury,  the 
reiterated  statement  that  this  is  the  very  glory  or 
“  perfection  ”  of  God.2 

It  is  a- fact  of  history  that  all  wars,  all  oppressions  of 
race  by  race,  of  class  by  class,  all  acts  of  legal  cruelty  and 
false  justice,  have  been  done  by  men  who  believed  that 
God  is  the  God  of  war,  the  God  who  takes  sides  with 
one  nation  against  another  or  of  one  class  against  an¬ 
other,  the  God  who  metes  out  legal  pains  and  penalties. 

1  Matt.  v.  44.  2  Matt.  v.  45.  Luke  vi.  35-36. 

149 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


That  man  has  always  fought  with,  or  tyrannized  over, 
his  fellow-man  in  the  name  of  justice  is  a  mere  matter  of 
history,  and  may  be  most  clearly  seen  in  the  fact  that 
religious  wars  or  oppressions  or  persecutions  or  penal 
codes  have  always  been  the  most  cruel.  The  political 
wolf  must  always  persuade  his  following  that  the 
political  lamb  has  muddied  the  stream  and  thus 
defied  the  powers  of  good.  No  war  could  be  begun 
unless  God,  or  whatever  in  the  community  embodies 
the  idea  of  supreme  right,  were  invoked  :  war  can 
never  cease  until  men  cease  to  think  of  God  as  a  man 
of  war  and  a  legal  judge — i.e.  as  a  Being  who,  sooner  or 
later,  will  vindicate  right  by  using  force  majeure. 

Inter-'  If  the  genius  of  Jesus,  working  up  through  rational 

l^ewould  inference  from  the  best  that  is  in  man,  on  through 
tii^end^of1!  clear_eyec4  mystic  vision,  to  the  knowledge  of  God’s 
the  present  free  and  universal  forgiveness,  had  in  that  vision 
received  from  God  confirmation  of  that  knowledge,  he 
would  be  sure,  with  an  absolute  conviction,  that  all 
civilization  founded  on  force  and  oppression  must  be 
temporary,  that  God’s  way  with  men  must  be  the  best 
way  of  government,  that  man  can  only  deal  satis¬ 
factorily  with  man  by  the  divine  method,  that  only  by 
the  attraction  of  goodness,  the  persuasion  of  suggestion 
and  the  education  of  good  example,  could  men  be 
thoroughly  and  permanently  civilized.  The  world- 
civilization,  as  it  then  was,  must  pass  away  ;  a  new 
order  based  on  the  persuading  power  of  reason  and 
fellowship  take  its  place. 

If  the  Jewish  nation,  the  Church-State  of  the  true 
God,  was  to  be  saved,  if  indeed  it  was  not,  like  other 
ancient  civilizations,  to  be  broken  up  because  of  its 
long-harboured  appeal  to  that  divine  vengeance  which 

150 


world- 

order. 


SALVATION  INTERNATIONAL 


was  only  a  figment  of  the  human  brain,  it  must  be  the 
first  to  enter  the  kingdom  of  a  forgiveness  universally 
received  and  given. 

Wrong-doing  produces  dreadful  results.  The  argu¬ 
ment  of  Jesus,  as  all  the  Gospel  parables  show,  was  not 
that  injurious  acts,  whether  of  men  or  nations,  were 
unimportant,  but  that  such  acts,  in  a  moral  universe, 
entail  such  terrible  natural  consequences  upon  the 
injurious  persons  that  they  ought  to  excite  compassion 
and  the  desire  to  save  the  wrong-doer.  This  compas¬ 
sion  must  be  reinforced  by  recognizing  that  the  injured 
is  never  guiltless — all  men,  all  nations  have  injured,  or 
sought  to  injure,  some  foe.  The  good  news  of  Jesus 
is  the  offer  of  escape  from  the  universal  Nemesis  of  sin 
that  threatens  alike  forgiver  and  forgiven. 

The  doom  of  consequence  comes  swift  and  sure.  It  Urgency  to 

is  necessary  always  to  hasten  to  do  such  good  deeds  doom  of 

that  evil  may  be  swallowed  up  of  good — but  how  ?  lll_conse" 

J  1  °  quence. 

Only  out  of  the  good  heart  can  good  come.  Evil  has 
come,  therefore  the  heart  has  not  been  good  :  the 
tree  is  not  good  that  is  producing  evil  fruit ;  only  the 
good  tree  can  produce  good  fruit.  A  new  birth,  a 
complete  change  of  disposition,  is  necessary.  How 
attain  it  when,  the  world  over,  it  is  always  true  that  the 
good  men  will  to  do,  they  do  not,  and  the  evil  they  have 
grown  to  despise,  that  they  do  ?  The  secret  of  power 
lies  in  the  realization  of  God  as  near  and  dear  ;  not 
angry  with  the  past  or  impatient  in  the  present ;  not 
annoyed  by  failures  and  falls ;  never  reproachful ; 
always  encouraging ;  offering  always  to  exorcise  the 
inward  evil,  to  heal  the  hearts  of  the  discouraged,  to 
deliver  from  the  train  of  habit,  to  give  new  vision  of 
what  ought  to  be  done  and  new  and  secret  incentive 

151 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


to  effort  in  the  certainty  of  divine  approval ;  to  open 
the  eyes  of  the  blind  individual  and  the  blind  nation  to 
a  higher  ideal  of  love  as  the  only  true  justice  and  the 
only  true  patriotism. 

The  good  activity,  which  it  was  then  necessary 
the  Jewish  nation  should  initiate  with  haste,  was  to 
consist  in  care  for  the  enemy’s  welfare  as  evinced  in 
whatever  particular  neighbourly  work  came  to  hand — 
care  for  human  welfare  without  regard  to  human 
desert,  because  God  does  not  regard  desert ;  without 
regard  to  nationality,  because  God  does  not  regard 
nationality.  Other  nations  would  press  into  the  king¬ 
dom  if  the  Jews  refused  to  enter. 

Man  cannot  The  contrast  between  the  single  eye  and  the  evil  eye 1 
masters^  would  thus  seem  to  refer  to  the  contrast  between  the 

mercy  and  unified  sense  of  duty,  that  sees  in  merciful  love  the 
retributive  .  ...  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 

justice.  only  real  justice,  and  the  ethical  confusion  that 

has  always  existed  when  justice  and  mercy  are  looked 

upon  as  opposing  duties,  and  opposing  natures  in  the 

Deity.  The  lesson  that  follows  in  Luke’s  account  is 

obvious.  When  judgment  and  love  are  seen  to  be  the 

same  thing  both  in  God  and  man,  then,  and  only  then, 

all  ritual,  all  sacrifice,  all  other  doctrine,  will  take  its 

proportionate  place. 

The  units  of  the  thought  of  Jesus  were  communities 
rather  than  individuals.  Jerusalem,  Tyre,  Sidon, 
Capernahum,  Chorazim  are  spoken  of  as  having  sinned 
as  a  man  might  sin.  Such  sayings  as  “  Salvation  is  of 
the  Jews,”  2  taken  along  with  the  lesson  of  the  widow 
of  Sarepta  and  Naaman  the  Syrian,  or  the  noting  of 

1  Luke  xi.  34.  Cf.  Matt.  vi.  22-23. 

2  This  sentiment  appears  even  where  most  unlikely,  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  which  seeks  to  individualize  the  message  with  the  intention  of 
making  it  more  spiritual  and  more  widely  applicable. 

152 


SALVATION  INTERNATIONAL 


the  superior  faith  of  the  centurion,  show  a  mind  alert 

to  the  relation  of  Jew  and  Gentile.  The  command  to 

render  to  Caesar  what  belongs  to  Caesar  suggests  an 

international  outlook.  An  imaginative  grasp  of  the  All  the 

known  world  is  implied  in  “  What  shall  it  profit  a  man 

if  he  gain  the  whole  world?”  “  I  am  come  to  send  fire  on  lT\  *he  mmci 
°  of  Jesus. 

the  earth,”  “  This  gospel  which  shall  be  preached  to  the 
whole  earth,”  “  As  the  lightning  cometh  out  of  the 
east,  and  shineth  even  unto  the  west.”  This  last 
may  easily  be  an  anticipation  of  the  universal  accept¬ 
ance  of  the  light  he  had  to  give  although  he  must 
confine  his  ministry  to  the  saving  of  one  nation, 
captive  and  blind  and  bruised,  whose  deliverance 
would  make  it  the  deliverer  of  the  world.  The  conver¬ 
sion  of  his  most  intimate  friends  is  openly  explained  to 
be  a  means  for  the  conversion  of  the  community. 

The  early  vision  1  of  “  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  and 
the  glory  of  them  ”  as  gathered  into  the  kingdom  of  his 
Father  seems  to  hover  over  all  his  teaching. 

1  In  the  Temptation,  which  was  the  prelude  to  his  worls. 


153 


CHAPTER  XIII 


Conse¬ 
quence  dis 
tinguished 
from  pun¬ 
ishment. 


TEACHING  CONCERNING  CONSEQUENCE 

In  dealing  with  men  whose  minds  are  steeped  in  the 
belief  that  all  misfortunes  come  about  by  the  direct 
will  of  God,  it  is  impossible  to  affirm  that  God  does 
not  punish  sin  without  appearing  to  them  to  say  that 
sin  has  no  torturing  and  deadly  consequence.  This 
must  be  kept  in  mind  in  examining  the  teaching  of 
Jesus.1 

In  this  universe,  so  far  as  we  know,  the  consequences 
of  wrong-doing  are,  sooner  or  later,  very  terrible.  In 
the  soul  the  wrong  intention  has  withering  result ;  and 
in  the  world  the  wrong  action  produces  misery  ;  and 
if  human  life  is  projected  beyond  death,  the  sequence 
of  spiritual  cause  and  effect  must,  surely,  go  on  while 
the  self  retains  its  identity  and  any  social  relations. 

But  it  is  often  urged  :  What  is  the  difference  between 
saying  that  God  punishes  sin  and  saying  that  God  is 
responsible  for  a  moral  universe  in  which  sin  is  a  cause 
of  which  the  effect  is  misery  ?  That  there  is  a  differ¬ 
ence  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  many  causes  beside 
sin  bring  about  misery,  for  misery  existed  before  moral 

1  Even  now,  in  a  Christendom  where  there  is  no  such  definite 
doctrine  of  providence,  if  anyone  questions  the  belief  in  divine 
punishments  he  will  find  himself  pilloried  as  teaching  an  easy-going 
and  immoral  doctrine.  How  much  more  difficult  must  it  have  been 
in  the  time  of  Jesus ! 

iS4 


TEACHING  CONCERNING  CONSEQUENCE 

responsibility  was  developed  in  man  ;  and  also  that 
sin  in  this  life  brings  about  more  misery  for  the  inno¬ 
cent  than  for  the  sinner.1  Again,  as  we  can  only  think 
of  God  under  some  figure  borrowed  from  humanity, 
and  have  chosen  that  of  “  father,”  we  are  able  to 
see  that  there  is  a  real  difference  between  a  God  who 
might  be  likened  to  a  father  who  would  break  his  son’s 
ankle  because  he  played  football  clumsily  and  a  father 
who  would  let  his  son  take  his  chance  in  the  game.  The 
first  we  all  recognize  as  a  man  of  inhuman  temper  ;  the 
second  we  call  a  good  father.  Nor  would  it  make  any 
difference  to  this  distinction  if  the  father  had  devised 
the  game  himself  to  educate  and  invigorate  his  son. 

Two  considerations  must  always  be  kept  in  mind 
along  with  the  thought  of  the  painful  consequences  of 
wrong  action.  One  is  that  faith  can  descry  a  moral  L 
universe  by  seeing  the  inevitable  spiritual  deteriora¬ 
tion  resulting  from  the  lower  choice  and  the  material 
ill-consequence  of  wrong  actions.  The  other  is  that 
the  system  of  causation  is  evidently  on  a  vaster  scale, 
tending  to  vaster  ends,  than  any  system  that  could  be 
exactly  adapted  in  detail  to  the  desert  of  each  individual 
or  group.  Evil  consequences  must  therefore  be 
sharply  distinguished  from  punishment,  which  implies 
the  infliction  by  a  moral  intelligence  of  pain  upon  the 
wrong-doer  on  account  of  his  evil  intent. 

But  because  Jesus  was  speaking  to  a  generation  to 
whom  this  distinction  was  unknown  he  would  find  no 
channels  of  human  thought  through  which  he  could 
pour  the  full  truth  concerning  God’s  attitude  to  Need  for 
sinners ;  and  even  that  measure  of  the  truth  that  the 

1  See  Concerning  Prayer ,  where  the  point  is  fully  discussed  by  the 
present  writer  in  essay  on  "Repentance  and  Hope.” 

155 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


A  doctrine 
essential  to 
complete 
joy  in  God. 


best  minds  of  his  time  were  ready  to  receive  would, 
if  expressed  literally,  have  confused,  perhaps  con¬ 
founded,  the  common  mind.  Had  he  plainly  said  that 
God  was  incapable  of  wrath,  most  of  his  hearers  would 
have  thought  that  he  taught  indifference  to  evil. 
However  clearly  he  apprehended  and  rejoiced  in  his 
own  conception  of  God’s  character,  he  could  only 
exemplify  it  in  action  and  resort  to  parable  in  his 
verbal  teaching. 

Yet  in  this  idea  of  God  we  seem  to  touch  the  spring 
of  the  unruffled  peace  and  joy  of  Jesus  and  of  those 
disciples  who  best  understood  him.  To  conceive 
God  as  having  in  His  heart  “  no  condemnation  ”  ;  as 
liking  His  children  in  spite  of  their  failings  and  sins ; 
as  compassionate,  beneficent  and  affectionate,  even 
when  disapproving  ;  as  pardoning  all  because  knowing 
all,  is  something  which  must  make  the  heart  of  the 
humble  leap  for  joy.  With  such  belief  the  heaven  is 
for  ever  clear  of  all  cloud  :  no  ominous  shadow  or 
dismal  storm  can  veil  the  zenith.  The  soul  that 
experiences  perfect  joy  in  God  while  believing  in  His 
punishment  of  the  damned,  evinces  either  mental 
confusion  or  lack  of  imagination,  which  we  hesitate  to 
attribute  to  Jesus.  But  the  soul  who  has  once  realized 
such  love  in  God  may  have  a  clear,  rational  and  imagina¬ 
tive  grasp  of  all  there  is  to  know  and  at  the  same  time  be 
invulnerable.  “  Neither  death  nor  life,”  nor  present 
nor  future,  nor  ecstasies  of  the  height,  nor  depth  of  sin, 
can  ever  again  separate  it  from  God’s  joy. 

It  is,  no  doubt,  difficult  to  think  of  God  as  the  supreme 
Power  and  at  the  same  time  regard  any  happenings  as 
other  than  His  direct  will.  Yet,  difficult  as  it  may  be, 
the  religious  mind  has  always  made  this  distinction  in 

156 


TEACHING  CONCERNING  CONSEQUENCE 

the  case  of  sin — saying  that  all  is  of  God  except  sin. 

To  make  all  the  consequence  of  sin  also  foreign  to  God’s 
will  is  only  logical.  Yet  as  the  whole  system  of  the 
universe  is  of  God’s  ordinance,  we  are  compelled 
to  say  that  not  only  all  evil  consequences  of  sin,  but 
all  sin  itself,  are,  in  that  sense ,  of  God.  Also,  when  we  The  answer 
reflect  what  the  only  inevitable  consequences  of  sin  Jewish] 
are — more  sinfulness  and  more  degraded  spiritual 
conditions — we  find  it  impossible  to  attribute  these  cruelty, 
to  a  good  God’s  will  in  any  sense  in  which  sin  is  not 
His  will.  Reflection  shows  that  a  plurality  of  wills 
has  always  been  accepted,  though  not  explained, 
by  the  adherents  of  all  ethical  religions  and  philosophies 
that  admit  man’s  moral  responsibility ;  for  these 
have  taught  that  a  large  proportion  of  the  actions 
of  a  very  numerous  and  widespread  class  of  living 
creatures  are,  and  always  have  been,  at  variance  with 
the  divine  government  of  the  world,  and  that  such 
actions  are  not  only  causes  of  evil,  but  themselves 
the  effect  of  a  cause  working  from  the  beginning 
of  the  race.  So  familiar  is  this  view  that  the  ordinary 
religious  mind  does  not  recognize  that  the  existence 
of  these  God-defying  activities  constitutes  a  problem 
which,  as  commonly  stated,  is  insoluble — God,  on  the 
one  hand,  as  Creator,  Sustainer,  and  omnipotent 
Governor  of  the  world,  and,  on  the  other,  the  mass  of 
sinful,  human  activities  which  do  not  in  any  way 
represent  His  will  or  manifest  His  character  or  purpose 
— a  dualism  of  good  and  evil,  God  and  the  devil. 

The  Jewish  and  Christian  defence  of  this  position 
has  taken  the  form  of  asserting  :  (i)  that  sin  is  some¬ 
thing  different  from  any  other  form  of  evil ;  (2)  that 
it  is  something  entirely  alien  to  the  true  nature  of 

157 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Sin  is  not  a 
solitary 
factor  in 
human  life. 


man  and  the  purpose  of  God  ;  and  (3)  that  it  is 
something  quite  separable  from  the  good  life,  and  is 
proved  to  be  subordinate  to  God  by  the  final  segrega¬ 
tion  of  impenitent  rebels. 

But  sin  can  no  longer  be  thought  of  as  an  element 
separable  from  the  mass  of  evil.  The  systematized 
study  of  human  development,  biological  and  psycho¬ 
logical,  the  study  of  the  human  soul  and  of  human 
societies,  have  taught  us  that  any  act  to  which  the 
theological  definition  of  “  sin  ”  is  applicable  is  only 
one  element  in  a  certain  condition  of  soul,  and  has 
no  actual  existence  except  as  an  integral  part  of  that 
condition.  The  quality  of  human  sinfulness  attaches 
only  to  such  conditions  of  soul  as  are  also  characterized 
by  defect  and  failing  and  mistaken  ideal.  And  these 
three  have  their  tap-roots  in  the  far  animal  ancestry 
of  savage  man,  and  their  fibrous  roots  in  millenniums 
of  faulty  social  environment,  and  they  spread  their 
branches  of  human  suffering  into  an  interminable 
future.  If,  then,  we  must  say  that  sin  is  not  God’s 
will,  what  of  these  ?  As  easily  could  we  eliminate 
wetness  from  water  as  these  attendant  conditions 
from  sin  :  except  in  a  most  artificial  way  of  thinking, 
sin  cannot  be  conceived  as  separate  from  the  other 
imperfections  of  life. 

Further,  we  cannot  think  of  sin  as  eradicable  by 
punishment,  just  because  that  would  not  be  appro¬ 
priate  to  those  other  flaws  of  existence  from  which 
sin  cannot,  except  in  theological  imagination,  be 
eliminated.  The  legal  fiction  by  which  pain  is  supposed 
to  cancel  sin  is  not  applicable  to  the  complexity  of  life. 
Life  suffers,  not  because  of  what  comes  to  it  from 
without,  but  because  of,  or  according  to,  its  own 

158 


TEACHING  CONCERNING  CONSEQUENCE 

character.  Pain  cannot  be  inflicted  on  stones,  or 
acute  pain  on  lower  forms  of  life.  Suffering,  like  sin, 
comes  from  within ;  they  both  develop  a-s  man 
develops  ;  and  it  is  noteworthy  that  the  nobler  man 
is  more  sensitive  to  suffering  than  the  ignoble.  Our 
first  point,  then,  is  that  those  who  affirm  that  sin 
is  contrary  to  the  divine  will  for  the  world  cannot 
accuse  those  who  hold  all  evil  and  degrading  misery 
to  be  contrary  to  the  divine  will  of  creating  a  new 
problem  or  a  dualism  that  did  not  already  exist  in 
orthodox  religious  thought. 

The  old  problem  is  always  there,  but  arises  in  acute 
form  if  we  use  language  which  would  seem  to  make 
the  whole  system  of  causation  in  which  we  live  inde¬ 
pendent  of  or  separate  from  the  will  of  God.  Such 
independence  is  virtually  admitted  by  those  who 
would  solve  the  riddle  by  talking  of  the  natural  order 
and  the  spiritual  order  as  distinct.  No  such  language 
is  used  in  this  book.  In  maintaining  that  the  system 
of  causation  has  a  larger  scope  and  wider  import 
than  can  be  brought  at  any  point  to  coincide  in  detail 
with  individual  desert,  it  is  also  maintained  that  this  If  spiritual 
system  is  the  divine  method  of  continuously  creating  universe6 
a  living  universe  of  which  what  we  call  spirit  and must  be 
matter  are  only  different  aspects.  The  whence  and  throughout, 
whither  of  this  system  are  beyond  our  ken.  What 
we  do  know  is  that  life  on  this  earth  develops  only 
as  it  adapts  itself  to  such  trends  of  circumstance  as 
it  may  discover  in  this  system,  and  only  acquires 
power  to  enjoy  and  to  suffer  as  it  develops.  Faith 
in  God  implies  the  belief  that  perfect  correspondence 
with  this  spiritual  universe  is,  when  attained,  the 
perfect  human  life.  We  see  causation  in  spiritual 

*59 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


things— -so  far  as  we  can  discern  them — even  more 
clearly  than  in  material  things ;  the  results  upon 
the  soul  of  the  higher  or  the  lower  choice  are  visible. 
To  believe  that  God  moves  freely  within  this  universal 
system  of  causation,  as  man  feels  himself  to  move, 
is  not  to  believe  that  He  moves  to  do  the  impossible — 
as  was  thought  of  old.  The  word  “  impossible  ” 
simply  means  “  impossible  within  the  system  of 
causation  as  we  know  it.”  To  say  that  more  things 
are  possible  to  God  than  to  man  is  not  to  say  that 
God  does  the  impossible.  (What  are  called  “  miracles  ” 
may  or  may  not  be  possible  ;  that  is  not  the  point 
here.)  The  point  is  that  while  all  that  man  can 
know  of  the  physical  and  spiritual  order  is  too  great 
to  be  fitted  into  any  tidy  human  system  of  religious 
or  moral  justice,  reason  catches  sight  of  indications 
in  the  world  of  fact  that  support  the  moral  and  the- 
istic  inferences  drawn  from  human  experience.  It 
is  more  in  keeping  with  the  intuitions  of  faith,  which 
are  part  of  human  experience,  to  believe  that  the 
system  of  causation  is  tending  to  good,  and  that 
God,  in  teaching  men  to  have  truer  perceptions 
of  good  and  evil,  is  adapting  man  to  a  perfect  corre¬ 
spondence  with  that  system,  than  to  believe  that  every 
circumstance  is  exactly  adapted  to  the  moral  desert 
of  the  individual  or  community. 

When  it  is  said  that  the  degrading  and  miserable 
consequences  of  sin — psychic  degradation  is  the  in¬ 
evitable  consequence  of  sin — are  not  punishments 
of  God’s  infliction,  it  may  appear  to  the  religious 
mind  at  first  sight  equivalent  to  saying  that  we  live 
under  a  godless  fate  or  necessity,  that  the  happenings 
of  this  life  are  not  under  God’s  government,  that  we 

160 


TEACHING  CONCERNING  CONSEQUENCE 

can  no  longer  appeal  to  the  care  of  God’s  providence 
or  hope  that  prayer  may  affect  the  course  of  events. 

But  that  difficulty  may  arise  largely  from  mistaken 
notions  of  “  government  ”  and  “  providence,”  and  of 
the  way  in  which  we  may  expect  God  to  affect  the 
course  of  events.  These  notions  come  from  symbolic 
pictures  taken  chiefly  from  Jewish  eschatology  and 
literature  written  when  men  lacked  the  conception 
of  an  ordered  universe. 

Let  us,  for  a  moment,  symbolize  the  system  of  the 
universe  as  a  loom,  of  which  what  we  call  “  inanimate 
nature  ”  is  the  frame.  The  predisposing  causes  of  The  uni- 
human  actions  would  be  the  threads  of  the  warp,  Symbolized 
fixed  in  an  immemorial  past,  ending  in  an  unthought-  as  a  loom- 
of  future.  The  actions  of  free  intelligence — man’s 
and  God’s — would  be  live  woof  threads,  ineffective 
unless  they  moved  in  and  out  of  the  warp,  but,  as 
they  moved,  changing  the  colour  and  consistency 
of  the  whole  web.  Moral  theology  has  always  in¬ 
sisted  that  the  purpose  of  the  universe  was  to  be  a 
training  school  for  free  intelligences.  It  is  obvious 
that  it  could  not  be  such  a  school  unless  all  life  and 
its  environment  were  conditioned  by  dependable 
characteristics.  The  frame  and  the  warp  fitly  figure 
the  system  of  causation  ;  but  if  we  can  think  of  the 
woof  threads  as  endowed  with  personal  life,  we  must 
note,  first,  that  the  weaver  could  not  control  these 
living  threads  except  by  personal  influence  ;  secondly, 
that  his  own  activity  is  conditioned  by  the  limita¬ 
tions  of  the  web.  It  will  be  evident  that  this  figure 
is  quite  inadequate,  for  each  free  action  starts  its  own 
thread  of  inevitable  consequence,  each  movement 
of  the  woof  would  set  up  a  new  strand  of  warp  into 

161  L 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


A  living 
universe. 


which  all  future  movements  must  fit.  Yet  if  this 
figure  has  served  to  take  our  minds  one  degree  away 
from  the  old  chess-board  notion  of  life  it  may  not  be 
useless. 

It  is  life,  and  life  alone,  that  is  ever  producing 
new  buds  or  life  germs,  each  of  which  sets  forth  upon 
its  own  path  of  existence  ;  therefore  the  universe  can 
only  be  adequately  conceived  by  us  as  a  living  whole, 
each  action  of  living  beings  bringing  forth  a  train  of 
appropriate  consequence.  Life,  whether  thought  of  as 
spiritual  or  physical,  is  lived  by  its  own  dependable 
characteristics.  It  differentiates  itself  from  chaos  or 
death  by  the  abiding  character  or  law  of  its  being. 
A  living  universe  can  produce  free  intelligences 
because  the  law  of  its  life  is  that  good  and  evil  reliably 
produce  each  after  its  kind.  If  it  were  not  so,  intelli¬ 
gence  would  be  impossible  and  freedom  meaningless. 
There  could  be  no  choice  where  means  could  not  be 
used  to  an  end. 

We  are,  then,  stating  any  problem  of  God’s  govern¬ 
ment  wrongly  if  we  think  of  the  world  as  a  “  kingdom  ” 
in  the  ancient  political  sense  in  which  static  regions  were 
owned,  and  armies  and  toiling  millions  controlled,  by 
the  will  of  an  unconstitutional  sovereign. 

The  fall  of  Jerusalem,  deplored  by  Jesus  Christ, 
may  illustrate  this.  The  siege,  the  fall,  with  all 
their  worse  than  brutal  horrors,  were  the  consequences 
of  the  national  ill-temper,  consequences  which, — given 
the  continuance  of  the  temper, — it  was  not  possible 
to  avert.  The  ill-temper,  again,  was  a  natural  conse¬ 
quence  of  past  events  and  past  religious  mistakes. 
Both  belonged — as  all  good  and  evil  events  belong — 
to  that  system  of  cause  and  effect  that  is  the  law  of 

162 


TEACHING  CONCERNING  CONSEQUENCE 

life  for  a  living  universe  in  which  a  group  of  men 
are  but  as  a  grain  in  the  multitude  of  free  spirits 
passing  through  the  process  or  school  of  creation. 
Faith  in  a  good  God  must  accept  the  school  as  God’s, 
and  believe  the  ill-temper  to  be  contrary  to  His  good 
pleasure ;  but  if  so,  the  causes  and  consequences 
of  the  ill-temper  also  belong  to  the  category  of  the 
disapproved,  are  a  part  of  that  chaos  that  is  partially 
resisting  organization.  To  believe  that  the  whole  is 
good,  and  that  each  soul  can  ultimately  so  adapt 
tself  to  this  environment  of  pulsing  causation  as  to 
make  good  all  its  losses,  does  not  necessitate  the  super¬ 
stitious  belief  that  whatever  is  is  right.  The  prayer 
“  Lead  us  not  into  temptation  ”  would  in  this  case 
apply  to  the  events  and  theories  which  were  the 
natural  causes  of  the  rebellion ;  the  deliverance 
from  evil  would  refer  to  its  appalling  results.  If 
these  were  of  God’s  devising  and  infliction  it  would  be 
blasphemous  to  call  them  evil.  It  is  interesting  to 
note  that  the  group  of  Jews  that  embraced  Christianity 
were  in  this  historic  instance  led  out  of  temptation 
and  delivered  from  the  evil.  If  we  believe  that  this 
living  universe  is  constantly  created  or  upheld  by  God, 
the  other  term  of  our  problem — divine  power — must 
be  an  activity  adapted  to  the  material  in  which  He  has 
chosen  to  work  His  purpose.  Our  present  position  is 
that  if  Jesus  taught  a  distinction  between  the  conse¬ 
quence  of  evil  and  the  divine  infliction  of  punishment, 
the  doctrine  is  not  incompatible  with  a  single  divine 
purpose  great  enough  to  contain  and  gradually  train  the 
separate  wills  of  countless  souls.  It  is  therefore 
possible  to  hold  that  God  may  be  all-powerful  while 
He  trains  developing  wills  to  adapt  themselves  to  a 

163 


A  school 
that  is  of 
God’s  devis* 
ing,  not  so 
the  faults 
of  the 

scholars  ana 
their  con¬ 
sequences. 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Divine 

immanence. 


developing  universe  which  does  not  harmonize  with 
man’s  notions  of  poetic  justice.  We  have  now  seen 
that  the  divine  government  of  man  must  be  thought 
of  as  a  dealing  with  growing  life  in  the  midst  of  growing 
life.  It  is  not  within  the  scope  of  this  book  to  discuss 
the  problem  except  as  it  is  dealt  with  in  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  Christ.  Jesus  said,  “  Not  a  bird  dies  without 
God.”  “  Not  a  hair  on  the  head  of  man  but  is  counted 
by  God.”  “  The  flowers  are  clothed  in  beauty  by 
God.”  “  The  birds  are  fed  by  God.”  Is  it  not 
obvious  that  we  have  here  the  thought  of  a  nature- 
mystic  conceiving  of  divine  activity  as  “  something  far 
more  deeply  interfused  ”  than  man  has  words  to 
express  ?  This  thought  of  God  at  work  through 
nature  is  perhaps  a  further  development  of  such  reflec¬ 
tion  on  personal  religion  as  “  He  restoreth  my  soul ; 
he  maketh  me  to  walk  in  the  paths  of  righteousness  ”  ; 
but  it  is  as  the  poles  asunder  from  the  apocalyptic 
conception  of  God’s  activity. 

“  Your  own  faith  has  made  you  whole.”  “  I  by 
the  finger  of  God  cast  out  devils.”  In  this  apparent 
opposition,  reiterated  or  implied  in  all  his  works  of 
mercy,  we  have  what  may  be  called  the  immanent  and 
transcendent  activities  of  God  seen  by  faith  at  work 
in  perfect  unity. 

“  All  sins  and  blasphemies  shall  be  forgiven  unto 
men,  except  the  blasphemy  against  the  Spirit.”  There 
are  here  two  thoughts — the  direct  denial  of  the 
eschatological  doctrine  that  God,  from  a  distant 
throne,  was  ever  ready  to  adapt  calamity  to  rebellion, 
and  the  assertion  that  irreverence  for  the  in-dwelling 
God  effectually  hinders  salvation.  Yet  we  must  take 
this  call  to  reverence  for  the  divine  within  as  recon- 

164 


TEACHING  CONCERNING  CONSEQUENCE 

ciled,  in  the  mind  of  Christ,  with  the  complete  assur¬ 
ance  that  God  is  able  ultimately  to  answer  every 
prayer.  “  Fear  not ;  it  is  your  Father’s  good  pleasure 
to  give  you  the  kingdom.” 

What  were  the  symbols  Jesus  used  for  God’s  trans¬ 
cendent  power  ?  The  husbandman  ;  the  shepherd  ; 
the  father.  Malachi  can  speak  of  God  as  a  refiner  of 
metal ;  and  even  St  Paul  can  still  think  of  Him  as  a  Symbols  of 
potter  turning  his  clay  ;  but  Jesus  knows  that  God  is  used 
dealing  with  life — life  wayward  and  ignorant,  that  by  by  Jesus, 
the  very  character  of  its  existence  must  suffer  blight  and 
disaster  as  a  consequence  of  failure  to  respond  to  the 
law  of  its  well-being.  Husbandman,  shepherd  and 
father — all  alike  can  only  find  their  own  well-being  in 
that  of  their  living  charge.  They  cannot  but  suffer 
in  the  failure  of  that  charge  to  respond  to  their  nurture. 

The  shepherd  trudges  painful  paths  after  the  wanderer  ; 
the  father  of  the  prodigal  waits,  straining  his  eyes 
upon  the  distance ;  and  Jesus,  representing  the 
attitude  of  God,  endures  all  possible  grief. 

In  the  interpretation  we  suggest  of  the  teaching 
in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  Jesus  does  not  speak  of  the 
activity  of  the  Father  or  the"  Spirit  as  producing 
anything  but  well-being — wisdom,  truth,  or  beauty. 

The  Spirit  teaches ;  the  Father  cares  for  the  needs 
of  the  body,  and  for  apparel,  which  is  an  aspect  of 
beauty.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  in  no  authentic  dis¬ 
course  does  Jesus  speak  of  the  pruning-knife  of  the 
husbandman.  His  husbandman  suffers  the  tares  to 
grow  with  the  wheat,  and  continues  the  cultivation 
of  the  fruitless  tree.  Nor  is  there,  in  his  reference  to 
fatherhood,  any  suggestion  of  the  rod  or  any  other 
symbol  of  the  severity  which  figured  so  largely  in  the 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 

Judaic  conception  of  God.  The  father  gives  to  the 
asking  child  and  loads  benefits  upon  the  returned 
profligate. 

Within  the  sphere  of  power  thus  conceived,  the  sin 
incidental  to  freedom — thought  of  as  so  far  like  good 
as  reliably  to  produce  consequence  of  its  own  nature 
— might  still  be  conceived  as  an  integral  part  of  the 
woe  which  it  produced,  the  whole  being  alien  to 
God  who  cherishes  all  life,  the  whole  system  of 
causation  still  being  thought  of  as  held  in  the  power 
of  an  eternal  will  that  can  overcome  evil  by  good 
because  its  character  is  love. 

We  have  seen  what  the  prayer,  “  Lead  us  not  into 
temptation ;  deliver  us  from  evil,”  may  mean  as 
applied  to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.  The  popular  philo¬ 
sophy  of  the  Jews  gave  the  arch-devil,  for  the  time 
being,  almost  as  much,  if  not  more,  power  than 
God  in  the  world.  He  it  was  who  would  lead  into 
temptation.  Yet  this  dual  authority  does  not  explain 
the  prayer,  for,  as  we  have  seen,  in  Judaic  philosophy 
the  evil  consequences  of  yielding  to  temptation  were 
not  conceived  as  inflicted  by  the  power  of  evil,  but  by 
the  power  of  good.  God  could  not  lead  into  tempta¬ 
tion,  but  He  could  deliver  from  evil.  It  was,  in 
fact,  a  confused  state  of  thought.  If  we  hesitate 
to  attribute  this  confusion  to  Jesus  we  shall  see  that 
in  his  teaching  it  is  remarkable  how  very  often  he 
recurs  to  the  idea  of  natural  consequence  as  an  ex¬ 
planation  of  temptation  and  evil  result.  These  come 
as  a  consequence  of  the  refusal  of  the  good  ;  and  he 
takes  pains  to  point  out  that,  however  hard  or  unjust  the 
school  of  the  world  may  be,  within  it  God  works  as  a 
Saviour,  manifesting  His  direct  will  in  leading  His  chil- 

166 


TEACHING  CONCERNING  CONSEQUENCE 

dren  aright  and  thus  saving  them  from  harm.  If  God 
leads  us  out  of  temptation  it  would  not  seem  that  the 
temptation  could  have  been  of  His  devising.  If  He 
delivers  us  from  evil  the  evil  cannot  be  of  His  infliction. 

Side  by  side  with  the  older  doctrine  of  retributive 
justice  there  runs,  through  the  whole  of  the  New 
Testament,  the  implicit  notion  that  God’s  universe  of 
natural  sequence  is  a  school  for  souls  through  which  God 
is  Himself  always  passing  as  the  friend  of  the  school 
children,  suffering  with  them  the  pains  they  bring  upon 
themselves,  and  saving  them  only  by  the  attraction  of 
His  own  goodness.  If  we  possess  any  true  history  of  Evidence 
Jesus  it  is  certainly  the  God  of  this  latter  belief  of  synoptic 
whom  he  in  his  earthly  life  claimed  to  be  the  representa-  G-ospels  of 

J  A  the  older 

tive.  Yet  if  we  take  the  Gospels,  written  and  edited  as  doctrine  of 

we  now  have  them,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Providence- 
writers — as  would  be  natural  to  members  of  a  perse¬ 
cuted  sect — accepted  without  question  the  apocalyptic 
notions  born  under  a  similar  persecution  1 — the  notions 
that  all  calamities  in  both  worlds  fitted  into  a  scheme 
of  human  poetic  justice,  that  God  would  be  especially 
manifest  as  a  severe  father  disciplining  imperfect  sons,  a9 
a  judge  executing  criminals.  It  is  therefore  very  re¬ 
markable  that  so  many  of  the  sayings  and  doings  of  Jesus 
which  these  writers  record  appear  to  show  that  Jesus 
himself  thought  otherwise.  Such  sayings  show  one 
test  mark  of  authenticity  in  that  they  run  counter  to 
the  presuppositions  of  the  Evangelists. 

The  men  on  whom  the  tower  of  Siloam  fell,  the 
Galileans  slain  at  the  altar,  are  brought  forward  as 
examples  of  the  working  of  good  and  evil  consequence. 

They  did  not  suffer  as  exemplary  sinners ;  and  yet  the 

1  See  Chapter  ii. 

167 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


whole  nation  would  suffer  in  like  manner  if  it  could  not 
change  its  vengeful  and  sullen  attitude  towards  hostile 
powers,  and  seek,  with  generous  benevolence,  the 
salvation  of  the  world.  Jerusalem  must  be  left 
desolate,  as  it  will  not  heed  the  call  to  a  better  mind  ; 
but  its  desolation  is  not  the  will  of  Jesus,  who  wept  over 
its  fate,  and  cannot  be  thought  of  as  the  will  of  the  God 
whom  he  represented.  “  It  is  impossible  but  that 
offences  will  come.”  How  deep  is  the  sense  of  the 
inevitable  working  of  evil  in  such  a  word  !  The 
Jesus  offences  are  not  brought  about  by  God.  “  The  blood 
natural  ^  t^e  prophets  shall  be  required  of  this  genera- 

resuits  of  tion.”  There  is  no  justice  in  this,  as  men  count 
good  and  .  .  .  ,  .  .. 

evil.  righteous  justice  ;  yet  it  was  absolutely  true  ;  evil  con¬ 

sequences  are  cumulative  ;  but  Jesus  carefully  does  not 
say  that  God’s  part  was  more  than  the  sending  of  the 
prophets.  When  Jesus  says  that  his  teaching  shall 
result  in  strife,  even  between  men  and  women  of  the 
same  household,  he  certainly  does  not  mean  that  the 
strife  is  God’s  will ;  it  is  the  inevitable  consequence 
of  the  fact  that  many  “  that  have  drunk  old  wine  do  not 
desire  new,  for  they  say  the  old  is  better.” 

In  the  parable  of  the  sower,1  the  seed  is  the  word  of 
God,  and  the  divine  Father,  described  as  Jesus  always 
describes  Him,  cannot  desire  other  than  a  hundred¬ 
fold  harvest  in  every  heart ;  but  the  results  are  strictly 
according  to  earthly  conditions.2  The  saying  about 
the  weather  and  the  signs  of  the  times,3  if  it  be  a 

1  Luke  viii.  5-8. 

2  It  is,  of  course,  a  question  whether  the  explanation  of  this  parable 
is  not,  like  the  explanation  of  some  other  parables,  a  later  addition. 
The  style  would  suggest  this — the  parable  exquisite  word-painting,  the 
explanation  prosy. 

3  Luke  xii.  54-56. 


l68 


TEACHING  CONCERNING  CONSEQUENCE 

warning  concerning  the  critical  position  of  the  Jewish 
Church-State,  is  a  distinct  command  to  look  to  the 
working  of  cause  and  effect  rather  than  to  miraculous 
deliverance. 

As  we  have  just  seen,  if  God  clothed  the  lilies  and 
fed  the  birds,1  it  surely  must  have  been  obvious  to  all 
that  in  such  cases  God  worked  through  the  ordinary 
processes  of  nature  and  did  not  interfere  with  them. 
Indeed,  Jesus  seems  consistently  to  have  discouraged 
the  conception  of  God’s  magical  interference.  Both 
the  militants  and  the  Pharisees,  in  their  outlook  upon 
the  national  future,  were  expecting  a  divine  deliverance 
for  the  nation  to  result  from  a  course  of  conduct  which, 
in  the  nature  of  things,  could  not  be  expected  to  bring 
it  about.  As  we  have  seen,  they  were  casting  the 
nation  down  from  the  pinnacle  of  the  Temple,  believing 
that  God  would  bear  it  up.  Jesus,  on  the  other  hand, 
remarks  that  the  men  of  his  generation  are  ready  to 
enter  the  kingdom  in  crowds  if  rightly  taught,  but 
only  by  human  prayer  and  human  faith  can  God  work 
to  send  labourers  into  the  harvest.2 

If  we  now  turn  to  the  distinctive  teaching  in 
Matthew,  which  apparently  records  the  early  Jerusalem 
tradition,  we  find,  if  we  subtract  the  additional 
editorial  touches  which  are  recognized  as  “  Matthew’s 
style,”  that  we  have  a  teaching  about  God  and  nature 
which  is  not  the  teaching  of  Jewish  eschatology. 
In  the  remarkable  parable  of  the  hiring  of  the  husband¬ 
men  at  a  penny  a  day,3  the  husbandman  here  is  cer¬ 
tainly  not  the  judge  of  legal  equity  Nature  often 
deals  like  this  with  men,  disregarding  any  human  notion 
of  justice  ;  or  a  God  whose  method  of  education  was 

1  Matt,  vi,  25-29.  2  Luke  x.  1-2.  3  Matt.  xx.  1-16. 

169 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


always  to  give  good  things  to  His  children  irrespective 
of  their  deserts  might  he  so  typified  ;  but  certainly  not 
the  God  of  Jewish  eschatology.  In  the  parable  of  the 
wise  and  foolish  virgins  1 — that  poignant  story  of 
lost  opportunity — the  foolish  virgins  have  the  best 
intentions.  Folly,  not  sin,  is  consigned  to  outer 
darkness.  But  the  bridegroom  cannot  typify  the 
shepherd  of  lost  sheep,  the  All-Father.  In  the 
parable  of  the  sheep  and  the  goats,2  whatever  may 
be  our  final  conclusion  concerning  it,  we  should 
remember  that  the  reward  and  punishment,  all  the 
picturesque  details  and  many  of  the  most  quoted 
phrases,  are  taken  from  the  Book  of  Enoch  and  the 
Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs .3  All  that  is 
original  to  Jesus  in  the  parable  is  the  conception  of 
virtue  as  a  course  of  conduct  that  cannot  be  measured 
by  legal  innocence,  and  the  suggestion  of  the  universal 
divine  in-dwelling — God  suffering  in  unfortunate  men, 
and  in  men  of  all  nations.  In  the  parable  of  the 
wheat  and  the  tares 4  the  teaching  appears  to  be  that 
ideas  and  institutions,  however  inferior,  cannot  be 
suddenly  brought  to  an  end  without  also  rendering 
abortive  much  good.  For  example,  such  things  as 
slavery  or  militarism  or  penal  codes  cannot  be  uprooted 
until  by  slow  growth  something  better  has  come  to 
growth.  Or  again,  a  false  conception  of  God  or  of 
worship  or  of  moral  obligation,  if  suddenly  removed 
leaves  an  unready  individual  or  community  a  prey  to 
atheism  or  irreligion  or  immorality.  Or  again,  the 

1  Matt.  xxv.  1-13. 

8  Matt.  xxv.  31-46. 

8  See  C.  W.  Emmet,  essay  on  “The  Bible  and  Hell”  in  Immor¬ 
tality  (Macmillan),  note  on  p.  197. 

4  Matt.  xiii.  24-30. 


170 


TEACHING  CONCERNING  CONSEQUENCE 

strongest  characters  are  formed  by  the  cultivation  of 
virtues  that  will  outgrow  faults  rather  than  by  first 
endeavouring  to  eradicate  the  faults.  The  “  explana¬ 
tion  ”  of  the  parable,  furnished  later  in  the  chapter  in 
Matthew’s  characteristic  way,  is  improbable ;  for  in  the 
parable  of  the  sower,  where  the  same  figure  is  used, 
Jesus  is  said  to  explain  that  the  “  seed  ”  is  “  the  word  of 
God  ”  1  or  truth  :  the  sower  going  forth  to  sow  does 
not  sow  men  but  ideas.  The  same  use  of  the  figure  in 
the  parable  of  the  wheat  and  the  tares  would  make  the 
“  good  seed  ”  stand  for  truth  and  the  “  tares  ”  for 
falsehood  ;  but,  in  order  to  make  this  parable  conform 
to  eschatological  belief,  Matthew  inconsistently  tells 
us  that  the  “  good  seed  are  the  children  of  the  king¬ 
dom  ”  and  “  the  tares  are  the  children  of  the  wicked 
>>  * 

one. 

All  the  parables  of  the  kingdom  in  Matthew  xiii.  are 
very  intelligible  as  illustrating  how  what  is  true  and 
what  is  good  in  human  society  is  hidden  by,  or  mixed 
with,  what  is  inferior,  until  by  a  development  of 
what  is  most  wholesome  in  the  community,  the  good 
becomes  apparent  and  the  bad  is  cast  off.  In  the  par¬ 
able  of  the  drag-net,2  as  in  that  of  the  tares,  it  is  the 
eschatological  addition  only  that  makes  the  parable 
seem  to  apply  exclusively  to  the  fate  of  individual 
souls,  asserting  that  at  death  each  man  will  be  found 
either  wholly  worthless  or  wholly  good — a  doctrine 
that  no  experience  appears  to  corroborate.  Else¬ 
where  it  will  be  shown  that  it  is  quite  in  Matthew’s 
style  to  give  “  explanations  ”  which  are  peculiar  to 
him. 

The  authors  of  both  Matthew  and  Luke  seem  to 


1  Luke  viii.  n. 


171 


2  Matt.  xiii.  47-50. 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


The  despot 
of  the 
parables 
symbolizes 
natural  con¬ 
sequence. 


think  that  certain  parables  represent  a  miserable 
destiny  as  fixed  by  the  fiat  of  God  for  those  who  dis¬ 
please  Him.  But,  placing  this  interpretation  side  by 
side  with  the  character  of  God  as  depicted  by  Jesus  in 
all  that  he  taught,  as  represented  by  him  in  all  that  he 
did,  we  see  that  it  presents  an  unthinkable  contradic¬ 
tion.  If,  however,  these  parables,  common  to  both 
Gospels,  represent  the  law  of  cause  and  consequence,1 
both  in  the  moral  and  physical  spheres,  they  are  extra¬ 
ordinarily  suggestive  of  the  ills  from  which  the  truth  of 
God  “  as  it  is  in  Jesus  ”  would  save  us.  Take  the  par¬ 
able  of  the  wedding  garment 2  :  is  it  not  a  wonderful 
picture  of  the  way  nature  treats  the  well-intentioned 
but  mistaken  man  or  sect  or  nation  dehumanized  by 
religion,  zealous  without  the  wisdom  of  God  ?  The 
parable  of  the  talents,3  too — “  whosoever  hath  to 
him  it  shall  be  given,  and  from  him  that  hath  not  shall 
be  taken  away  even  that  which  he  hath  ” — displays 
what  is  certainly  the  law  of  natural  psychological 
sequence,  both  for  individuals  and  for  nations ;  but  it 
cannot  display  the  immediate  will  of  a  Saviour-God. 
We  have  also  the  parable  of  the  consequential  man  who 
takes  the  seat  of  honour  at  his  friend’s  feast  and  is  put  to 
shame.4  It  is  a  perfect  description  of  the  place  the 
Jews  were  seeking  to  take  as  a  nation  at  the  feast  of 
nations,  with  the  natural  result  of  their  national  vanity 
pointed  out.  In  all  the  feast  stories,  the  potentate  of 
the  feast  is  much  more  like  a  personified  principle  of 
consequence  than  like  the  God  who  has  a  right  to 
demand  from  His  children  inexhaustible  compassion 
for  one  another  and  unending  fellow-feeling  because  He 

1  See  C.  W.  Emmet,  Chap.  xix.  2  Matt.  xxii.  11-14. 

3  Matt.  xxv.  14-30.  4  Luke  xiv.  7-11. 

I72 


TEACHING  CONCERNING  CONSEQUENCE 

Himself,  their  Father,  has  infinite  compassion  and  a 
holy  and  glorious  way  of  doing  good  to  the  unthankful 
and  the  evil. 

A  text  often  cited  as  proving  divine  punishment  is 
that  in  which  the  Father  in  heaven  is  supposed  to  be 
shown  as  killing  men,  soul  and  body.1 2  When  so  much 
of  our  Lord’s  teaching  clearly  indicates  that,  while  a 
right  course  of  action  leads  naturally  to  life,  a  wrong 
course  of  action  leads  naturally  to  perdition,  it  is  hard 
to  understand  why  the  power  who  “  after  he  hath 
killed  hath  power  to  cast  into  hell  ”  should  be  identified 
with  God,  especially  as  that  saying,  in  the  Q  passage 
in  which  it  appears  in  both  Gospels,  is  the  preface  to  a 
statement  of  God’s  most  tender  and  minute  care  for 
all  His  creatures.  The  downfall  of  the  house  built  on 
the  sand  8  has  a  distinct  cause,  but  that  cause  is  not 
God’s  power,  which,  if  arbitrary  in  the  matter, 
would  surely  have  been  exerted  to  cause  the  builder — * 
whether  individual  or  nation — to  found  his  dwelling 
on  rock.  As  we  have  already  seen,3  Jesus  does  not 
suggest  that  God’s  punitive  power  was  behind  Pilate 
when  he  slew  some  Galileans  at  the  altar,  or  that  the 
tower  in  Siloam  fell  by  punitive  fiat  of  God.4  Yet  the 
lesson  Jesus  draws  is  that  if  the  nation  will  not  take  up 
the  right  attitude  to  its  enemies,  all  its  members  will 
meet  with  consequent  destruction.  But  again  there 
is  no  hint  tfiat  such  destruction  will  be  by  the  action 
of  the  Father.  Why,  then,  should  we  assume  that  he 
who  “  has  power  to  cast  into  hell  ”  is  other  than  that 
power  of  evil — whether  conceived  as  an  arch-demon 

1  Luke  xii.  4-9.  Matt.  x.  28-31. 

2  Matt.  vii.  24-27.  Luke  vii.  47-49. 

8  Pp.  139,  167.  4  Luke  xiii.  1-5. 


173 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 

I 

or  as  personified  consequence — constantly  seen  in  the 
parables  of  Jesus  ?  The  whole  drift  of  his  ethical 
teaching  goes  to  show  that  the  soul,  by  neglecting 
the  good,  casts  itself  into  evil  conditions.  The 
“  power  ”  that  “  casts  into  hell,”  into  all  the  “  hells  ” 
there  are,  is  sin,  i.e,  the  law  of  consequence  working 
through  sin. 


*74 


CHAPTER  XIV 


TEACHING  CONCERNING  PUNISHMENT 

“  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father.”  These 
words  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  sum  up  a  belief  about 
Jesus  that  has  been  accepted  by  the  Christian  Church — 
that  Jesus  is  a  perfect  and  living  symbol  of  God.  At 
the  least  estimate  it  points  to  the  fact  that  the  character 
and  ethics  of  Jesus  appeal  to  the  highest  ideal  of 
Christian  men,  and  that  man,  if  he  believes  God  to  be 
good,  must  of  necessity  attribute  to  God  this,  his 
highest  ideal  of  good. 

Thus  it  is  evident  that  if  we  are  seeking  the  teaching 
of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  regarding  God’s  reaction  to 
man’s  sin,  we  must  discover  it  in  the  way  Jesus  reacted 
to  sin  quite  as  much  as  in  his  verbal  teaching. 

It  was  no  new  idea  that  a  prophet  must  act  out  a 

message  too  great  and  important  to  be  adequately 

expressed  in  words.  Jesus  had  a  message  concerning  Jesus,  like 

a  divine  love  before  which  all  notions  of  human  justice  prophets 

faded  and  fell  away — a  message  which,  as  we  have  seen,  needs  must 
,  ,  1-1  11  1  •  act  out  his 

must  have  been  disastrously  misunderstood  by  multi-  message  as 

tudes  if  expressed  in  words.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  he  it 

would  adopt  Hosea’s  way  of  using  his  own  actions  as 

parables  of  God’s  actions  towards  Israel.  The  fact 

that  Jesus  quoted  Hosea’s  words,  “  I  will  have  mercy 

and  not  sacrifice,”  suggests  that  he  had  Hosea  in  mind. 

1 75 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


God 

eternally 
acts  as 
Jesus  acted. 


Attitude 
of  Jesus 
towards  sin. 


Analysis  of 
“  righteous 
anger.” 


It  has,  in  fact,  always  been  recognized  that  Jesus 
did  give  his  teaching  about  God  in  this  way ;  but  the 
full  implication  of  this  has  not  been  accepted,  for  the 
Church,  hampered  by  having  adopted  the  apocalyptic 
visions  of  Jewish  seers,  has  not  been  able  to  teach  that 
God  acts  eternally  as  Jesus  acted.  Jesus  was  the  friend 
of  open  sinners,  the  companion  of  their  joys  as  well  as 
of  their  griefs.  He  gave  them  relief  from  sickness  and 
disability  without  asking  if  they  were  deserving  of  good 
fortune.  He  told  them  that  their  sins  were  forgiven 
without  inquiring  what  those  sins  were.  He  remon¬ 
strated  with  sinners  and  warned  them  of  the  results  of 
their  conduct ;  but  he  did  not  punish.  “  In  all  their 
afflictions  he  was  afflicted,’’  even  sharing  the  extremest 
earthly  penalties  that  could  accrue  to  human  guilt.  He 
submitted  to  every  indignity  men  put  upon  him.  He 
won  them,  in  so  far  as  he  won  them,  by  the  sheer 
attraction  of  the  beauty  of  goodness.  Jesus  did  not 
punish  anyone  :  his  character  is  not  that  of  a  destroying 
angel  or  avenging  judge  or  implacable  God.  As  the 
Church  has  always  acknowledged — in  words  at  least — 
that  Jesus  had  a  knowledge  of  God  which  he  could  not 
put  into  speech  but  could  only  exemplify  in  action,  it  is 
inconsistent  to  accept  quotations  from  apocalypses 
which  have  found  their  way  into  the  records  when  they 
contradict  the  whole  tenor  of  his  life. 

In  what  is  commonly  called  “  righteous  anger  ”  or 
“  indignation  ”  there  are  two  distinct  elements.  The 
first  is  passionate  disapproval  of  the  wrong-doing, 
which,  in  pure,  unsophisticated  family  affection,  is 
entirely  consistent  with  as  strong  a  desire  to  shield  the 
culprit  from  punishment  and  to  trust  him  to  reform 
himself.  The  second  is  the  more  primitive  desire  that 

176 


TEACHING  CONCERNING  PUNISHMENT 


the  culprit  should  suffer — a  partial  sublimation  of  the 
instinct  of  revenge  on  which  all  our  penal  systems  and 
moral  dissertations  are  founded.  These  two  are  quite 
separable.  The  first  Jesus  certainly  exemplified.  But 
of  the  second  we  have  no  certain  trace  in  him,  for  this 
distinction  was  not  commonly  made  in  the  time  of 
Jesus,  and  men  who  witnessed  his  passionate  dis¬ 
approval  of  wrong  would  be  likely  to  interpret  it  as 
the  anger  they  themselves  would  associate  with  it. 

In  the  light  of  this  distinction  the  appeal  made  by 
Jesus  to  the  Book  of  Jonah  is  noteworthy.1  The 
Jewish  nation,  fixing  all  its  hopes  upon  a  miraculous 
deliverance  and  the  destruction  of  other  nations,  was 
an  “  evil  generation  ”  that  sought  after  “  a  sign  ”  ; 
and  the  reference  to  “  the  sign  of  the  prophet  Jonah  ” 
is  significant,  for  Jonah  despaired  because  God  could 
take  Israel’s  worst  national  enemy  to  His  merciful  heart.2 
Nineveh  at  that  time  typified  such  a  national  enemy 
as  was  Imperial  Rome  in  our  Lord’s  day.  The  refer¬ 
ence  to  Jonah  carries  the  same  lesson  as  does  the  God's 
parable  of  the  prodigal  son  and  the  parable  of  the  penny  conditioned 
a  day — that  they  who  look  for  God’s  free  bounty  to  be  by  desert, 
in  any  way  conditioned  by  desert  will  not  them¬ 
selves  participate  in  the  joy  God  would  give  them,  and 
will  quarrel  with  Him  for  His  goodness  to  sinners. 

By  the  help  of  the  analysis  recent  psychology  has 
made  of  human  character  the  doctrine  of  forgiveness 
becomes  more  explicable.  That  analysis,  freed  from 
some  mistaken  assumptions  made  by  early  expounders 
and  based  on  a  too  exclusive  dealing  with  unhealthy 
minds,  amounts  to  this  :  in  each  of  us  to-day  the  habits 
practised  by  our  progenitors  are  latent ;  and  habits 

1  Luke  xi.  29-32,  and  parallels.  2  Cf.  Chap.  iv.  p.  46. 

1 77 


M 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Psychologi 
cal  confir¬ 
mation  of 
this 

position. 


practised  for  three  million  years  are  naturally  stronger 
than  those  civilized  habits  only  practised  for  three 
thousand  years.  Animal  habits,  habits  necessary  to 
primitive  human  life,  exist  in  strong  tendencies  at  vari¬ 
ance  with  the  character  required  by  a  rational  civiliza¬ 
tion.  Two  cheerful  facts  are  to  be  noticed.  First,  our 
animal  ancestors  were  comparatively  cleanly  and  tem¬ 
perate  in  greed,  revenge  and  sexual  indulgence  as 
compared  with  degraded  humanity,  so  that  the  child  of 
the  most  degraded,  in  reverting  to  type,  tends  to  com¬ 
parative  decency.  Secondly,  there  is  in  humanity  an 
unexplained  assurance  of  the  superiority  of  the  more 
recently  acquired  power  of  reason  and  hence  of  the 
power  to  perceive  truth,  beauty  and  moral  grandeur 
This  unexplained  assurance,  lacking  only  in  the  degener¬ 
ate,  may  well  be  considered  the  divine  spark  or  con¬ 
science  in  man  ;  it  affords  a  strong  presumption  for  the 
existence  of  a  divine  mind  in  creative  evolution.  The 
effort  to  bring  the  instinctive  and  impulsive  life  into 
harmony  with  these  high  perceptions  and  the  dictates 
of  reason  is  always,  everywhere  and  at  all  times  recog¬ 
nized  by  normal  men  as  virtue. 

It  does  not  follow,  except  in  unsubstantiated  theory, 
that  that  effort  can  always  be  made  successful.  There 
is  much  true  devotional  reflection  that  admits  that 
man — as  our  collect  has  it — is  unable  “  to  stand  up¬ 
right.”  1  What  does  follow  from  the  universal  belief 
that  man’s  effort  to  moralize  himself  is  virtue  is  that  to 
relapse  is  to  suffer  the  natural  consequence  of  failure — 
for  the  individual  it  is  to  miss  the  prize,  to  fail  in  the 
race  ;  for  the  community  it  is  to  be  dominated  by  the 
more  progressive  community.  For  every  forward  step 


1  Collect  for  fourth  Sunday  after  Epiphany, 


TEACHING  CONCERNING  PUNISHMENT 


is  a  new  power.  In  the  teaching  of  Jesus  the  success  of 
effort  to  make  the  life  beautiful  and  true  and  temperate 
is  blessed  ;  the  failure  is  not  cursed  but  pitiful.  He 
says  in  effect :  “  Blessed  indeed  are  those  who  have  not 
given  way  to  selfishness  or  avarice  or  pride  or  lust  or 
frivolity  ;  but  with  regard  to  those  who  have  yielded, 
they  will  have  woe.  Pity  them,  for  you  also  are 
imperfect.  Do  not  condemn  them,  for  God  Himself 
does  not  condemn.  Be  merciful  as  your  Father  in 
heaven  is  merciful.  Judge  not.”  1 

Now  this  is  quite  in  harmony  with  psychological  law. 
Man  is  like  a  baby  learning  to  walk.  Every  parent  will 
encourage  the  effort,  although  in  falling  he  must  hurt 
himself  ;  no  sane  parent  would  whip  him  for  falling. 

To  relapse  from  the  higher  perception  of  good  to  a 
lower  practice  is  what  religion  has  called  “  sin.” 
It  is  “  original  ”  certainly  ;  it  is  “  inbred  ”  certainly  ; 
it  is  “  universal  ”  certainly  ;  it  is  productive  of  woe. 
All  these  affirmations  of  religion  lie  in  the  heart  of 
truth  ;  but  when  the  inference  is  made  that  a  good 
God  must  condemn  and  add  punishment  to  conse¬ 
quence,  Christians  state  a  thing  for  which  there  is  no 
evidence,  and  which  is  denied  by  the  main  part  of 
the  recorded  teaching  of  Jesus,  and  by  his  very  char¬ 
acter  and  life. 

As  a  matter  of  historic  fact,  the  dynamic  of  the 
Christian  religion  everywhere  has  been  St  Paul’s  joyful 
cry,  “  There  is  therefore  now  no  condemnation  to  them 
that  are  in  Christ  Jesus.”  It  is  remarkable  that  this 
shout  of  St  Paul’s  comes  after  his  masterly  analysis  of  the 
helplessness  of  the  human  soul  in  the  grip  of  tendencies 
not  yet  habitually  governed  : 

1  Luke  vi.  36-37. 

179 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


God’s 
forgiveness 
of  sin  as 
inevitable 
as  natural 
ill-conse¬ 
quence. 


Contrast  of 
this  with 
Greek, 
Roman  and 
Jewish 
ideas  of 
God. 


“  That  which  I  do  I  allow  not  :  for  what  I  would,  that  do  I 
not ;  but  what  I  hate,  that  do  I.  If  then  I  do  that  which  I 
would  not,  I  consent  unto  the  law  that  it  is  good.  Now  then 
it  is  no  more  I  that  do  it,  but  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me.  For  I 
know  that  in  me  (that  is,  in  my  flesh)  dwelleth  no  good  thing  : 
for  to  will  is  present  with  me  ;  but  how  to  perform  that  which 
is  good  I  find  not.  For  the  good  that  I  would  I  do  not  :  but 
the  evil  that  I  would  not,  that  I  do.  ...  I  find  then  a  law,  that, 
when  I  would  do  good,  evil  is  present  with  me.  For  I  delight 
in  the  law  of  God  after  the  inward  man  :  but  I  see  another  law 
in  my  members,  warring  against  the  law  of  my  mind,  and  bring¬ 
ing  me  into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin  which  is  in  my  members.” 
— Romans  vii.  15-33. 

Man  is  not  free  to  do  right,  because  the  old  Adam, 
the  age-long  growth  of  instinctive  animal  life,  is  not 
wholly  under  the  control  of  the  newer  growth  of 
reason.  The  knowledge  of  right,  the  sense  of  “  ought,” 
the  threat  of  penalty,  the  offer  of  reward — all  these  have 
proved,  through  the  ages,  to  be  *  too  weak  to  govern 
primitive  cravings  the  yielding  to  which,  in  the  higher 
development  of  life,  is  sin.  What  releases  the  galley 
slave  of  sin  is  the  realization  that  God,  who  can  never 
be  alienated,  offers  Himself  as  the  in-dwelling  power 
that  gives  freedom. 

In  the  early  Church  the  inspiration  of  Jesus  was  found 
to  have  convinced  believers  that  God’s  forgiveness  was 
an  inevitable  consequence  of  the  sense  of  sin.  “  He  is 
faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us  our  sins.”  1  How  would 
such  a  community  be  likely  to  rationalize  this  novel  and 
joyful  doctrine,  so  astonishing  to  the  legal  mind  ? 
Would  not  the  Jew  naturally  suppose  that  God’s 
attitude  had  changed  since  the  time  when  a  different 
“  infallible  revelation  ”  was  given  to  his  forefathers, 

1  1  John  i.  9. 
l80 


TEACHING  CONCERNING  PUNISHMENT 


and  that  the  change  must  have  been  effected  by  some 
supreme  sin-offering  ?  Would  not  the  Greek,  deeply 
imbued  with  Orphic  ideas,  suppose  that  the  new  rela¬ 
tionship  to  God  must  depend  upon  some  initiatory  rite 
and  the  partaking  of  some  sacramental  food  ?  No 
generation  can  shift  all  the  scenery  in  its  mental 
theatre  of  life. 

To  realize  the  contrast  between  the  old  scenery  and 
the  new  we  must  call  to  mind  the  beliefs  about  divine 
punishment  which  the  Jews  of  our  Lord’s  day  had  in 
mind  : 

“  For  their  names  shall  be  blotted  out  of  the  book  of  life  and 
out  of  the  holy  books,  and  their  seed  shall  be  destroyed  for 
ever,  and  their  spirits  shall  be  slain,  and  they  shall  cry  and  make 
lamentation  in  a  place  that  is  a  chaotic  wildnerness,  and  in  the 
fire  shall  they  burn.” — Book  of  Enoch ,  cviii.  3. 

Providence  is  represented  as  even  smoothing  the  way 
to  the  pit : 

“  Like  tow  wrapped  together  is  the  gathering  of  the  ungodly, 
And  their  end  is  a  flame  of  fire. 

The  way  of  sinners  is  made  smooth,  without  stones, 

And  at  the  end  thereof  is  the  pit  of  Hades.” 

Wisdom  of  Ben-Sir  a,  xxi.  9-10. 

When  we  realize  that  one  chief  ground  for  such 
punishment  as  this  mentioned  in  many  places  is  simply 
lese-majesU ,  we  see  how  far  it  is  from  the  thought  of 
Jesus : 

“  But  ye  have  turned  away  and  spoken  proud  and  hard  words 
With  your  impure  mouths  against  His  greatness. 

Oh,  ye  hard-hearted,  ye  shall  find  no  peace. 

Therefore  shall  ye  execrate  your  days 
And  the  years  of  your  life  shall  perish.” 

Book  of  Enoch ,  v.  4-5. 

I8l 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Striking 
originality 
of  the 
teaching 
of  Jesus. 


“  Refrain  your  tongue  from  blasphemy  ; 

For  even  the  secret  utterance  goeth  not  forth  unnoticed 
(by  God).” — Wisdom  of  Solomon ,  i.  II. 

These  passages  are  only  a  few  out  of  many.  They 
show  us  God  concerned  for  His  own  dignity,  exacting 
under  the  lash  not  only  legal  obedience  but  homage. 

In  contrast  with  this  conception  of  an  all-mighty 
Creator,  disposing  of  all  things  in  His  vast  creation  as 
tie  would,  whose  holiness  demanded  the  ruthless 
punishment  of  all  rebels  and  disrespectful  persons, 
consider  the  conception  of  God  out  of  which  grew  the 
idea  of  the  Incarnation.  To  our  ears,  dulled  by  the 
din  of  theological  controversy,  or  perhaps  merely  by 
the  drone  of  oft-repeated  doctrines,  the  wrords  “  God 
became  man  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth  ”  do  not  suggest  the 
extraordinary  revolution  in  the  thought  concerning 
God  which  underlies  them.  Whatever  interpretation 
or  value  we  may  give  to  the  traditional  creeds  of 
Christianity,  we  must,  if  candid,  admit  that  down  all 
the  Christian  generations  for  two  thousand  years  there 
has  come — side  by  side  with  the  more  primitive  strain — 
a  stream  of  thought  concerning  the  true  nature  of  God’s 
grandeur  and  holiness  which,  somehow,  had  its  source 
in  the  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus,  and  which  is  quite 
different  from  the  thought  of  God  most  prominent 
in  the  Old  Testament  and  apocryphal  writings, 
although  it  is  a  development  of  a  certain  nobler  strain  in 
those  writings,  and  is  the  answer  to  the  problem  of  the 
combination  in  God  of  goodness  and  omnipotence 
which  those  writings  present.1 

We  get  the  vivid  mental  scenery  of  the  Jewish 
religion  in  the  Apocalypses  of  Ezra  and  Baruch ,  which 

1  Compare  Chap.  xvi. 

182 


TEACHING  CONCERNING  PUNISHMENT 


grew  out  of  the  period  in  which  Jesus  lived.  Here  is 
the  seer’s  prayer  for  the  divine  compassion  and  God’s 
reply  : 

“  O  Lord  that  dwellest  for  ever,  .  .  „ 
whose  look  drieth  up  the  deep, 
and  whose  rebuke  melteth  the  mountains  .  .  . 
think  not  upon  those  that  have  behaved  themselves 
badly  before  thee, 

but  remember  them  that  with  good  will  have  recog¬ 
nized  thy  fear  !  .  .  . 

and  be  not  angry  against  those  who  have  behaved 
worse  than  the  beasts, 

but  love  them  that  have  always  put  their  trust  in  thy 
glory.  .  .  . 

And  God  answered  and  said  to  me  :  ...  In  truth  I  take  no 
thought  about  the  fashioning  of  the  evil-doers,  or  about  their 
death,  or  about  their  judgment,  or  about  their  perdition  ; 
but  I  delight  rather  over  the  fashioning  of  the  righteous,  and 
over  their  life,  and  over  the  recompense  of  their  reward.” — 
Apocalypse  of  Ezra ,  viii.  20,  23,  28,  30,  37-39. 

Compare  the  attitude  of  God  in  such  a  passage  as : 

“  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten 
Son,  etc.,”  or  this  :  “  He  took  a  little  child  and  set  him  by 
his  side,  and  said  unto  them,  Whoever  shall  receive  this  little 
child  in  my  name  receiveth  me  :  and  whoever  shall  receive 
me  receiveth  him  that  sent  me  ”  ;  or  again  :  “I  am  in  the 
midst  of  you  as  he  that  serveth.” — John  iii.  16;  Luke  ix. 
47-48  ;  xxii.  27. 

Such  difference  in  the  whole  atmosphere  of  thought 
and  feeling  is  revealed  in  this  comparison  that  we  know 
it  could  not  have  been  effected  by  a  mere  verbal 
or  doctrinal  contradiction  of  the  older  doctrine, 
even  if  Jesus  could  have  found  words  to  make  it.  The 
perception  of  beauty  in  art  or  in  nature  cannot  be  con¬ 
veyed  in  plain  words  to  a  people  who  have  it  not  3 

183 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


No  sense 
of  fear  in 
Jesus. 


nor  can  the  value  of  truth  be  taught  in  phrases  and 
precepts  to  communities  who  have  not  learned  to 
distinguish  between  fact  and  fancy.  To  teach  an  ideal 
of  God  and  goodness  hitherto  undreamed  of,  Jesus 
could  only  exemplify  it  in  action  and  seek  by  parable 
to  create  an  atmosphere  in  which  the  new  thought 
could  grow. 

An  outstanding  point  of  contrast  between  the  mind 
of  Jesus  and  the  mind  of  the  age  is  seen  in  his  entire 
freedom  from  any  sense  of  fear  ;  while  “  a  certain 
fearful  looking  for  judgment,”  a  fear  of  God  that  was 
the  fear  of  deadly  punishment,  darkened  the  heaven  of 
Jewish  thought. 

Here  are  the  words  of  Salathiel,  the  Jewish  seer,  who 
is  said  to  have  lived  a  righteous  life  : 


“  For  what  advantage  is  there  .  .  .  that  the  glory  of  the 
Most  High  is  destined  to  protect  those  who  have  lived  chastely, 
whereas  we  proceed  in  wicked  ways  ?  And  that  Paradise,  whose 
fruit  withereth  not,  wherein  is  delight  and  healing,  is  mani¬ 
fested,  whereas  we  do  not  enter  in,  because  we  have  served  evil 
places  ?  And  that  the  faces  of  the  holy  ones  are  destined  to 
shine  above  the  stars,  while  our  faces  shall  be  blacker  than 
darkness  ?  For  we  did  not  consider  in  our  life  time,  while  we 
were  committing  iniquity,  that  we  were  destined  to  suffer 
after  our  death.” — Apocalypse  oj  Ezra ,  vii.  119-126. 


So  Paul,  who  was  “  as  touching  the  law  blameless,” 
thinking  of  his  former  life  under  the  law,  writes  : 

“  The  commandment  which  was  unto  life  this  I  found  to  be 
unto  death.  .  .  .  Who  shall  deliver  me  out  of  the  body  of 
this  death  ?  ” — Romans  vii.  10-24. 

In  the  Gospels  we  breathe  a  new  religious  atmo¬ 
sphere,  because  we  find  them  dominated  by  a  new  idea 
of  God.  If  anyone  will  take  the  trouble  to  read  the 

184 


TEACHING  CONCERNING  PUNISHMENT 


story  of  judgment  in  the  Books  of  Joel ,  Zechariah , 
Malachi ,  Daniel  and  Enoch ,  and  the  doctrine  of  judg¬ 
ment  in  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  and  the  Wisdom  of 
Ben-Sira ,  and  then  turn  and  read  the  Synoptic  Gospels, 
he  will  recognize  the  dramatic  transition  from  fear  of 
punishment  to  freedom  from  fear.  In  closing  the 
Judaic  writings  he  leaves  behind  a  complex  structure 
of  thought  like  a  vast,  dark,  insanitary  temple,  magni¬ 
ficent  and  richly  adorned  but  polluted  by  the  blood  of 
countless  human  victims,  filled  with  rolling  vapours 
of  incense  which,  however,  cannot  disguise  the  stench 
of  the  shambles,  and  he  goes  out  into  a  place  of  great, 
simple  ideas,  where  he  seems  to  see  the  blue  sky  over¬ 
head  and  to  meet  the  sweet  wind  of  the  morning. 

We  may  believe  that  there  has  never  been  a  great 
temple  in  which  God  was  not  found,  none  but  has 
been  built  by  the  spirit  of  worship.  Where  God  and 
worship  meet  there  is  always  something  of  truth  and 
love  and  beauty ;  but  in  these  matters  there  have  been 
differences  between  temple  and  temple,  between  the 
practices  of  one  religion  and  those  of  another.  It  is 
both  the  great  achievement  and  the  unique  privilege 
of  the  Jews  that  their  popular  religious  thought  and 
practices  better  bear  the  scrutiny  of  ages  than  those  of 
other  nations,  that  their  psalter  has  still  such  value  for 
needy  souls  that  it  ranks  as  the  great  classic  of  the 
spiritual  life.  Yet,  taken  together,  Law  and  Prophets, 
and  the  apocryphal  visions  of  all  their  seers,  and  the 
Wisdom  writings,  present  us  with  such  thoughts  of 
heaven  and  earth,  of  God  and  man,  as  oppress  and  dis¬ 
may.  Of  this  oppression  and  dismay  the  Apocalypses 
of  Ezra  and  Baruch  are  a  lasting  record. 

This  great  difference  between  the  mental  atmosphere 

185 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


The 

Synoptists 
unconscious 
of  difference 
between 
teaching  of 
Jesus  and 
apocalyptic. 


Analysis 
of  the 
difference 
between 
Jesus  and 
apocalyptic. 


of  Jewish  literature  and  the  Gospels  is  the  more  remark¬ 
able  because  the  writers  of  the  Gospels  as  we  now  have 
them  certainly  believed  that  they  ought  to  make  the 
one  correspond  with  the  other.  The  Synoptic  writers 
themselves  seem  hardly  aware  of  any  incompatibility 
between  the  apocalyptic  books  in  which  they  believed 
and  the  teaching  of  Jesus  in  which  also  they  believed. 
They  certainly  seem  blinded  to  the  contradiction  in 
the  case  already  noticed,  where  they  couple  as  com¬ 
patible  the  eschatological  baptism  of  deadly  fire  with  the 
baptism  of  that  Spirit  whose  emblem  is  the  dove  and 
who  conveys  power  “  to  heal  the  broken-hearted  and 
bring  deliverance  to  those  who  mourn.”  1 

The  great  difference  of  fragrance  and  illumination 
that  one  experiences  in  passing  from  the  eschatology 
of  the  day  to  the  life  of  Jesus  is  indeed  the  transition 
from  the  shadows  of  a  complex  theology  to  the  sun¬ 
light  of  divine  simplicity.  The  completeness  of  the 
transition,  even  though  not  clear  to  the  Gospel  narrators, 
is  obvious  to  us  because  their  subject  overmasters  their 
theory.  Jesus  seems  to  be  a  character  of  whom  it  is 
impossible  to  write,  whom  it  is  impossible  to  quote, 
without  bringing  the  soul  of  man  out  from  under  dark, 
ornate  theological  architecture  into  the  sunny,  open 
spaces  where  it  may  be  “  true  to  the  kindred  points  of 
heaven  and  home.” 

When  we  try  to  analyze  the  difference  of  which  we 
are  speaking  we  find  that  the  central  idea  of  that 
eschatology  identifies  God  with  the  power  of  “  the 
hidden  hand,”  a  hidden  but  external  and  compelling 

1  In  the  middle  and  end  of  the  first  century  a.d.,  as  in  succeeding 
centuries,  we  find  in  the  Christian  Church  the  wheat  and  the  tares, 
truths  and  errors,  growing  lustily  together ;  but  the  change  that  even 
a  partial  understanding  of  the  new  truth  makes  is  as  light  in  darkness. 

1 86 


TEACHING  CONCERNING  PUNISHMENT 

power.  This  “  hand  ”  works,  now  in  afflicting  the 
obedient  to  the  end  of  their  purification,  and  now  the 
wicked  by  way  of  warning  ;  but  ultimately — and  this 
is  the  expected  triumph  of  faith  and  hope- — ulti¬ 
mately  the  “  hand  ”  will  be  revealed  in  the  punitive 
uprooting,  not  of  sin  from  the  heart,  but  of  sinners 
from  the  society  of  the  righteous.  These  writers  are 
divided  as  to  whether  in  the  end  the  righteous  remnants 
of  all  nations  will  submit  to  the  law  and  worship  the 
God  of  Israel.  There  is  division,  again,  as  to  whether 
all  sinners,  or  only  a  multitude  of  arch-sinners,  shall  be 
quickened  from  death  to  be  condemned  to  torment. 
There  is  vast  difference  among  them  as  to  whether 
deliverance  for  Israel  shall  be  wrought  directly  by  God, 
or  by  God  through  some  destroying  agent,  or  through 
Messiah  ;  vast  difference  also  as  to  the  character  and 
work  of  Messiah,  and  as  to  whether  deliverance  shall 
come  long  before,  or  after,  the  final  judgment.  But  all 
unite  in  leading  us  through  the  events  of  human  history, 
past  and  future,  to  the  day  when  the  “  hidden  hand  ” 
shall  strike  in  the  open,  “  when  the  wrath  of  God  shall 
be  revealed.”  In  all  of  them  faith  and  hope  are 
nobly  sustained  by  an  assured  certainty  of  the  perfect 
life  beyond  that  day ,  that  great  and  dreadfql  day. 
But  the  light  of  that  future  is  always  obscured  by  the 
lurid  picture  of  judgment  ;  and  the  life  of  the  present  is 
robbed  of  all  peace,  except  for  those  complaisant  souls 
who  believe  that  they  have  laid  up  “  such  treasury  of 
good  works  ”  that  they  may  pass  scathless  through 
the  lightnings  that  surround  the  awful  throne.  Under 
this  regime  of  prophets  and  seers  the  true  and  worthy 
soul  could  not  look  up  except  to  a  firmament  in  whicli 
clouds  of  fate  and  fear  were  rolling  tip  in  ominous  and 

187 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


cumulative  volume  between  him  and  the  face  of  God. 
Visions  and  revelations  without  number  had  curtained 
heaven  with  fire  and  vapour  of  smoke. 

Any  religion  can  be  made  workable  by  men  who  give 
themselves  to  the  assimilation  of  its  practice  with  the 
necessities  of  the  life  of  their  time,  either  by  cutting  off 
the  common  life  and  making  religion  their  one  business, 
or  by  a  careful  modification  and  adjustment  of  the 
claims  of  the  Deity  to  the  market  and  the  home.  But 
these  two  classes  of  men,  taken  together,  are  a  small 
minority  of  mankind.  The  common  man,  whose 
best  is  a  rueful  feeling  that  he  does  not  want  to  be  evil 
but  that  the  claims  of  God  are  much  more  than  he  can 
meet — what  of  him  ?  Whenever  his  salvation  is 
provided  for  by  the  fulfilment  of  some  slight  ritual 
exaction,  he  can  be  easy  in  his  mind — easy,  but  never 
progressively  good.  But  whenever  his  salvation  is 
made  to  depend  upon  elaborate  ritual  exactions  or  the 
realization  of  high  ethical  aims,  this  common  man  has, 
in  general,  lapsed  into  comparative  irreligion.  For, 
after  all,  in  the  world  as  it  is,  it  is  a  hard  enough  struggle 
to  support  one’s  wife  and  children,  a  hard  enough 
struggle  to  get  on  in  decent  relation  with  one’s  fellow- 
men.  Judaism,  especially  the  Judaism  of  the  first 
century,  with  its  fulminations  against  sin  and  its 
looming  Day  of  Judgment  and  scrap-heap  of  hopeless 
punishments,  had  no  place  for  the  common  man. 
The  prophets  and  the  apocalyptic  books  are  full  of 
talk  concerning  the  multitudes  of  “  unrighteous  ”  and 
“  ungodly  ”  among  the  Chosen  People. 

Moreover,  this  Judaism  had  no  place  for  the  sensi¬ 
tively  moral  man  like  Salathiel  or  for  the  author  of 
Baruch  or  for  Paul.  “  What  the  law  could  not  do  ”  was 

1 88 


i 


TEACHING  CONCERNING  PUNISHMENT 


to  rid  them  of  their  fear  of  judgment  and  unify  their 
natures  by  divine  grace. 

Paul’s  great  discovery,  “  There  is  therefore  now  no 
condemnation  to  them  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus,”  was 
a  truth  that  we  may  believe  Jesus  had  seen  to  apply 
to  all  men.  All  had  their  being  in  the  inexhaustible 
generosity  of  God  :  all  were,  by  the  divine  standard, 
unrighteous  :  no  man  was  under  sentence  of  divine 
punishment :  all  had  their  place  in  the  divine  purpose. 

He  went  about  preaching  to  the  common,  indifferent 
multitude  and  gathered  round  him  sensitive,  earnest 
souls  from  all  classes.  He  taught  them  all.  He  did  not 
say,  “  Be  good,  and  then  you  shall  be  blest  by  God  ”  ; 
he  said,  “  Here  and  now,  in  your  common  ways  of  life, 
you  are  blest.”  Probably  they  all  felt  that  they  were 
“  poor  in  spirit  ”  ;  they  all  knew  what  it  was  to 
“  mourn  ”  ;  they  all  “  hungered  ”  for  a  better  state 
of  things.  They  were  often  “  persecuted  ”  and 
reviled.  The  doctrine  was  not,  “  Be  good  and  you 
shall  be  loved  of  God,”  but  “  Here  and  now,  poor 
Galileans  as  you  are,  God  likes  and  loves  you  ;  there¬ 
fore  you  can  be  good.”  He  told  them  that  they  had 
heard  the  humanitarian  requirements  of  the  law — that 
was  true  ;  they  had  heard  them  often  and  found  them 
very  hard  to  obey.  But  he  went  on  to  tell  them  that 
the  requirements  of  duty  were  more  exacting  than  they 
had  thought.  He  traced  duty  back  into  the  region  of 
motive,  so  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  say,  “  That 
man  keeps  the  law,  and  that  man  does  not.”  Judged 
by  such  a  standard  everyone  falls  short ;  there  are  no 
longer  two  classes,  righteous  and  unrighteous,  justified 
and  condemned  ;  and  God  the  Father,  as  a  fact,  does 
not  condemn,  but,  by  the  infinite  attraction  of  His 

189 


The 

problem  of 
the  punitive 
character 
ascribed  to 
God  in  the 
Gospels. 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 

own  goodness  to  “  the  unthankful  and  the  evil,” 
encourages  His  children  to  be  like  Himself. 

If  we  set  before  us  the  seventeen  or  eighteen  passages 
in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  that  appear  to  teach  the  puni¬ 
tive  character  of  God’s  attitude  to  men,  we  find  that 
they  are  couched  in  the  imagery  of  Jewish  eschatology, 
and  we  may  accept  one  of  three  conclusions  concerning 
them,  (a)  We  may  believe  that  many  of  these  sayings 
are  additions  to  the  true  tradition,  and  that  those  few 
which  seem  most  authentic  Jesus  used  pictorially  to 
exemplify  the  doctrine  of  consequence,  which  we  have 
seen  he  otherwise  taught,  while  any  explanation  he 
may  have  given  with  them  has,  like  many  other  sayings 
of  Jesus,  been  lost.1  ( b )  Or  we  may  believe  that  Jesus, 
like  the  average  man,  had  a  confused  mind,  in  which 
traditional  beliefs  existed  unchallenged  side  by  side  with 
newer  and  more  vital  ideals  which,  in  the  course  of 
centuries,  are  found  to  contradict  them.  ( c )  Or  we 
may  believe  that  Jesus  endorsed  the  conception  of 
God  which  the  acceptance  of  Jewish  eschatology 
implies.  We  have  seen  what  that  belief  was.  We  have 
seen  how  sensitive  and  holy  souls  not  possessing  the 
originality  or  independence  of  mind  to  reject  it  still 
shrank  from  it.  Let  us  mark  this  :  if  Jesus  endorsed 
the  apocalyptic  fantasy  regarding  divine  punishments 
he  endorsed  it  wholly.  There  is  no  sign  in  the  use  of 
eschatological  phrases  by  Jesus,  as  reported  by  the 
Synoptics,  that  he  taught  a  modified  doctrine  of  divine 
punishment — quite  the  reverse.  Such  phrases  would 
clearly  refer  his  hearers  to  lurid  and  detailed  passages 
familiar  to  them. 

1  Cf.  C.  W.  Emmet,  Chap.  xix. 


I90 


CHAPTER  XV 


TEACHING  ON  FORGIVENESS 

Forgiveness  is  a  necessary  element  in  every  friendship  Forgiveness 

between  two  personal  intelligences,  but  it  is  never  the 

most  important  element.  It  is  true  of  every  genuine  human 

A  r  •  i  i  associations, 

friendship  between  brother  and  brother,  friend  and  but  not 

friend  ;  but  especially  is  it  true  of  the  friendship  be-  iniportent 
tween  a  loving  parent  and  his  child  ;  but  the  chief  element, 
function  of  a  parent  is  not  to  forgive  :  the  chief  joy  of  a 
child  in  his  parent’s  society  is  not  the  sense  of  being  for¬ 
given.  In  any  case  where  the  friendship  is  between 
superior  and  inferior,  forgiveness  will  be  a  constant  and 
natural  action  of  the  superior ;  that  is  to  say,  all 
faults  of  taste,  negligences,  ignorances  and  ill-tempers 
on  the  part  of  the  inferior  or  less  disciplined  character 
will  be  accepted  with  generous  forbearance,  and  over¬ 
looked  except  in  so  far  as  the  influence  of  the  superior 
is  directed  towards  their  correction. 

When  Jesus  taught  the  common  people  around  him  Jesus 
to  argue  from  human  fatherhood  to  God’s,  he  must  have  tjiat  God’s 
implied  that  God  delighted  in  them  as  growing  things,  ^a§1^eeness 
that  the  element  of  transgression  and  forgiveness  judged  by 
between  them  and  God  would  have  the  same  emphasis  analogy, 
that  it  naturally  has  in  the  happy  family  relation,  and 
no  more.  In  addition  to  this  we  have  those  cases 
where  he  confidently  assured  depressed  souls  that  their 

191 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


The  evil  of 
sin  is  not 
minimized. 


sins  were  forgiven,  without  apparently  inquiring  as  to 
the  degree  of  sin  or  its  cause  or  consequence,  or  as  to  the 
depth  or  validity  of  the  repentance.  Unless  he  was  a 
wholly  miraculous  person,  exercising  on  earth  divine 
powers,  omniscient  with  regard  to  the  lives  of  those 
with  whom  he  came  in  contact,  this  quiet  and  ready 
assertion  that  the  sins  of  these  sufferers  were  forgiven 
implied  his  belief  that  God  always  forgave  fully  and 
freely.  The  simple  inference  from  his  words  and 
conduct  is  that  they  must  get  the  consciousness  of  guilt 
and  worry  off  their  minds  before  they  could  realize 
their  right  relation  to  God. 

This  was  not  to  minimize  the  evil  of  sin.  The  soul 
that  builds  upon  the  sand  finds  its  shelter  in  ruins : 
“  Except  ye  repent  ye  shall  all  perish  ” — i.e.  the  nation 
must  perish  unless  it  repented  of  its  hostile  behaviour. 
Nor  was  it  to  minimize  the  natural  gratitude  of  the 
soul  for  God’s  generous  compassion  :  he  who  is  for¬ 
given  much  loves  much. 

The  prayer,  “  Forgive  us,  as  we  forgive,”  again 
implies  the  argument  from  human  relations  to  the 
relation  of  God  to  man.  How  do  we  forgive  ?  For 
the  most  part,  if  the  injury  be  a  real  one  we  do  not 
really  forgive  at  all;  but  that  state  of  mind  cannot 
be  analyzed  here.  We  do  forgive  quite  constantly 
and  habitually  all  sorts  of  little  failings  and  stupidities 
in  those  we  like  ;  that  is,  we  like  them  in  spite  of  these. 
Our  pleasure  in  them  and  kindness  to  them  do  not 
vary  because  of  their  misdemeanours.  The  greatest 
need  of  human  beings  is  the  need  of  each  other,  and 
that  is  why,  when  any  two  people  satisfy  each  other’s 
need,  forgiveness  is  a  matter  of  course.  Then  again, 
when  an  injury  is  very  real,  and  cannot  be  forgiven 

192 


TEACHING  ON  FORGIVENESS 


without  real  agony  of  soul,  the  best  and  noblest  strains 
in  religious  literature  have  always  affirmed  the  conquest 
of  good  over  evil  to  be  the  obliteration  of  all  sense  of 
offence  and  injury  by  a  generous  outflow  of  kindness  to 
the  offending  person  before  that  person  has  experienced 
repentance.  There  is,  of  course,  another  more  popular 
phase  of  religious  and  moral  thought  which  condemns 
any  relenting  towards  an  offender  before  he  has  re¬ 
pented  ;  and  this  phase  of  thought  belongs  to  the  still 
sterner  phase  which  counts  all  forgiveness  immoral  and 
would  always  mete  out  punishment  according  to 
the  measure  of  the  offence.  It  may  be  set  aside, 
for  unless  the  offended  person  has  already  the  dis¬ 
position  to  put  himself  in  the  other’s  place,  to  feel 
with  the  other’s  regret,  the  repentance  of  the  offender 
will  work  no  change  ;  in  other  words,  forgiveness  must  be 
latent  in  the  heart  of  the  offended  person  if  the  repent¬ 
ance  of  the  offender  will  make  it  explicit.  It  is  most 

important  not  to  confuse  for  a  moment  forgiveness  Free 

.  ..  .  i  .  vrr  i  i  i*  r  forgiveness 

of  an  injury  with  indifference  to  the  moral  quality  ol  not  to  be 

the  offensive  action ;  and,  indeed,  the  best  that  is  in  ^^used 

man  has  always  acknowledged  that  human  holiness  is  indifference 

more  truly  expressed  by  the  free  forgiveness  of  an 

injury  which  the  forgiving  person  justly  abhors,  and  by 

generous  conduct  towards  the  offender  even  while  his 

attitude  is  repulsive,  than  by  any  attitude  of  loathing, 

any  fierceness  of  wrath.  Wrath  against  sinners,  threats 

of  punishment,  are  by  the  best  men  never  held  to  be 

noble  when  the  moralist  who  gives  expression  to  them 

has  been  personally  injured.  If  we  think  of  God  as 

being  Himself  the  One  against  whom  all  sin  is  an  offence 

— “  against  thee,  thee  only,  have  I  sinned  ” — and  if 

we  admit,  as  Jesus  certainly  did,  the  argument  from 

193  N 


to  sin. 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Man  models 
himself 
on  his 
conception 
of  God. 


the  nature  of  human  goodness  to  that  of  the  divine, 
it  follows  that  it  belongs  to  the  very  nature  of  God  to 
forgive,  that  He  cannot  do  otherwise.  We  must,  then, 
admit  that  tears  and  entreaties  for  mercy,  if  they  are 
aimed  at  the  softening  of  His  heart,  are  insults,  that 
offerings  of  bulls  and  of  goats  must  always  have  been 
irrelevant  absurdities. 

There  is  nothing  so  evident  in  the  whole  of  human 
history  as  man’s  godliness — god-like-ness.  Whatever  a 
man  thinks  his  God  is  and  does,  that  he  seeks  to  be  and 
do,  and  generally  succeeds.  If  his  gods  are  sexually 
immoral,  such  is  he,  and  that  even  in  his  worship. 
If  his  God  is  a  God  of  war,  he  is  truculent.  If  God  is 
one  among  many  and  jealous,  unable  to  abide  other 
gods,  His  followers  are  jealous  of  the  prestige  of  any 
nation  but  their  own,  unable  to  abide  other  nations. 
If  God  is  conceived  as  the  One  Absolute  Reality, 
rational  but  impassible,  man  holds  himself  above 
human  joys  and  sorrows  in  Stoic  aloofness.  If  God  is 
cruel,  demanding  to  be  appeased  by  the  death  of 
victims  and  human  suffering,  man  cuts  himself  with 
stones,  indulges  in  ascetic  deprivation  and  self-torture, 
and,  demanding  the  same  of  others,  is  profligate  of 
human  happiness  and  human  life.  If  God’s  holiness 
consist  in  the  vindictive  punishment  of  wrong,  and  His 
glory  consist  in  the  power  to  coerce  His  creatures  into 
obedience,  human  civilization  will  express  itself  in 
a  penal  code  and  will  be  founded  on  military  force.  If 
to  men  who  worship  a  God  of  penal  justice  and  coercing 
force  a  prophet  should  come  who  should  proclaim 
another  God,  their  whole  religious  instinct  would  be 
gathered  up  in  the  cry  :  “  Let  us  alone  ;  what  have  we 
to  do  with  thee,  thou  Jesus  of  Nazareth  ?  Art  thou 


194 


TEACHING  ON  FORGIVENESS 


come  to  destroy  us  ?  ”  But  they  would  not  add,  as  the 
poor  demoniacs  are  said  to  have  added,  “  I  know  thee 
who  thou  art,  the  holy  one  of  God,” 

Yet  it  must  have  been  this  new  idea  of  God  that 
Jesus,  if  he  was  consistent,  proclaimed,  for  no  man  has 
the  true  inward  disposition  to  forgive  his  enemies,  to  do 
good  to  them  who  do  ill  to  him,  to  bless  them  that  are  a 
curse  to  him,  unless  he  is  quite  sure  that  God  forgives 
freely  and  blesses  without  thought  of  desert  or  hope  of 
reward.  To  forgive  because  God  is  trusted  to  avenge 
is  a  psychological  impossibility.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  to  recognize  that  the  offender  is  doing  what  in¬ 
capacitates  and  injures  himself,  promotes  compassion 
and  forgiveness.  Calling  ill-consequence  punishment, 
men  believed  they  must,  and  hence  could,  worship  an 
avenging  God  and  also  practise  forgiveness  towards 
the  unrepentant.  This  fallacy  has  made  so-called 
“  Christian  forgiveness  ”  a  byword  with  the  world. 

Rejecting  a  legal  and  penalizing  God  in  favour 
of  a  God  that  saves  only  by  forgiveness  and  saves 
to  the  uttermost,  we  get  the  answer  both  to  the 
problem  of  God’s  cruelty  and  the  problem  of  God’s 
power  as  they  are  so  graphically  presented  in  Jewish 
apocalyptic.  Ill-consequence,  cruel  as  it  seems,  is 
the  product  of  a  vast  creative  method  not  acting 
with  personal  adaptation.  Persons  to  live  well  must 
adapt  themselves  to  it ;  but  it  is  not  a  penal  code. 
A  penal  code  cannot  command  obedience,  as  the  Jews 
discovered  ;  but  a  Living  Love,  give  it  time  and  free 
scope,  does  adapt  men  to  the  good  life.  Love  is  thus 
kinglier  and  more  majestic  than  law,  for  it  rules  free 
spirits.  It  is  the  only  power  that  can  leave  men  free 
while  yet  it  controls  their  action. 

1 95 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Ambiguity 
of  the  word 
“  forgive¬ 
ness.” 


Jesus  taught  that  the  attitude  of  God  to  sinners  was 
embodied  in  that  full  and  free  forgiveness  that  love 
always  accords  to  its  own.  This  teaching  is  obscured 
by  the  fact  that  the  word  “  forgiveness,”  and  its 
synonyms  in  other  languages,  often  confuse  two  dis¬ 
tinct  things  in  one — the  attitude  that  cannot  do  other 
than  forgive  a  beloved  culprit,  and  the  attitude  that 
can  only  exist  when  the  culprit  responds  to  kindness. 
This  last  is  not  properly  forgiveness  at  all,  but  only 
its  natural  result  under  certain  conditions 

Heartfelt  forgiveness  without  remission  of  penalty 
may  be  illustrated  by  the  case  of  a  parent  or  guardian 
forgiving  a  boy  or  girl  and,  while  complete  reconcilia¬ 
tion  is  effected,  still  inflicting  a  penalty  if  such  penalty 
is  judged  to  be  the  best  educational  method.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  a  penalty  has  been  threatened  it 
may,  on  the  culprit’s  repentance,  be  remitted  without 
forgiveness  while  the  offended  person  still  harbours  a 
heartfelt  grudge.  In  this  latter  case  the  mere  remission 
of  penalty  is  often  loosely  called  forgiveness  of  the 
offence  ;  though  what  we  have  is  remission  of  penalty 
without  forgiveness.  Again,  the  offended  parent  may 
entirely  forgive  an  erring  son,  and  be  eager  only  to  em¬ 
brace  the  offender  and  do  him  good  ;  but  if  the  son  does 
not  desire  reconciliation,  or  admit  that  he  is  in  the 
wrong,  the  parent  cannot  act  towards  him  as  he  would  if 
repentance  were  felt  and  expressed.  The  same  is  true 
between  friend  and  friend  ;  while  affection  is  repulsed 
there  can  be  no  reconciliation.  We  can  thus  have  for¬ 
giveness  without  reconciliation.  The  reconciliation, 
when  it  comes,  is  not  only  called  forgiveness  but,  for 
lack  of  clear  thinking,  is  thought  of  as  forgiveness, 
while  in  reality  it  is  only  the  expression  of  a  forgive- 

196 


TEACHING  ON  FORGIVENESS 


ness  that  already  existed.  Thus  in  the  Epistles  passages 
may  be  found  where  the  reconciliation  of  the  soul  or 
the  world  to  God  is  spoken  of  as  God’s  forgiveness. 

Many  of  these  various  uses  of  the  word  forgiveness 
seem  to  arise  from  identifying  the  goodness  which  God 
desires  in  man  with  mere  innocence  in  relation  to  a 
written  law,  whence  follows  the  identification  of  for¬ 
giveness  with  remission  of  penalty  following  on 
repentance. 

Jesus  analyzed  the  confusion,  and  the  distinction  Distinction 
between  innocence  and  goodness  is  clearly  indicated  in  ijf^fence 
that  saying  of  his,  “  To  whom  little  is  forgiven  the  same  and  g°od“ 
ioveth  little.”  Stones  are  innocent ;  babes  are  inno¬ 
cent  ;  idiots  are  innocent ;  but  if  God  has  created  and 
fostered  this  world  with  a  purpose,  the  product  that  can 
fulfil  that  purpose  is  the  development  of  human  lives 
with  all  their  instincts  and  impulses  sublimated  to 
ends  wise  and  benevolent.  A  soul  who  had  thus 
developed  would  ultimately  certainly  have  the  quality 
of  innocence  in  the  sense  that  from  the  time  it  became 
wholly  wise  and  kindly  it  would  not  even  desire  to 
do  or  be  what  was  out  of  harmony  with  its  highest 
perception  of  goodness.  Innocence  is  therefore  a 
necessary  attribute  of  mature  goodness.  But  unless  in 
the  case  of  a  heart  wholly  good  from  the  beginning,  as  a 
good  tree  is  good  or  a  pure  spring  of  water  is  pure, 
human  goodness  must  grow  in  the  conflict  of  impulses, 
and  the  cold,  sluggish  soul  who  has  fewest  impulses  to 
excess  in  anger  or  acquisitiveness  or  sexual  passion  is  by 
no  means  the  noblest  or  capable  of  the  highest  develop¬ 
ment.  It  is  clear  that  a  human  being  in  the  making 
could  only  be  innocent  in  relation  to  some  law.  In  so 
far  as  such  a  law  was  good,  legal  innocence  would  be 

197 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


In  lifting 
the  concep¬ 
tion  of 
goodness 
above  that 
of  inno¬ 
cence,  Jesus 
lifted  the 
idea  of 
forgiveness 
above  that 
of  remission 
of  sin. 


good  as  far  as  it  went.  But  innocence  in  relation  to 
such  a  law  would  be  a  low  type  of  goodness,  for  no 
law  could  demand  the  depth  and  height  of  possible 
attainment.  Further,  unless  the  law  were  a  perfect  law 
- — which  no  codified  conception  of  obligation  has  ever 
been — demanding  nothing  that  was  foolish,  demanding 
only  what  was  good,  legal  innocence  would  not  be 
entirely  good  even  as  far  as  it  went.  If,  for  example, 
a  ritual  law  demanded  from  a  man  money  which  he 
ought  to  spend  on  the  maintenance  of  his  aged  parents, 
innocence  would  not  be  good.1  On  the  other  hand, 
innocence  might  be  compatible  with  a  bad  heart  of 
which  the  law  could  take  no  cognizance.2 

In  lifting  the  conception  of  goodness  above  the  notion 
of  innocence,  in  exalting  a  divine  ideal  for  humanity, 
Jesus  lifted  the  conception  of  forgiveness  entirely 
above  the  notion  that  it  must  consist  in  the  reversal  of 
some  former  condemnation. 

The  teaching  of  Jesus  on  forgiveness  chiefly  lies  in 
his  almost  exclusive  use  of  the  word  “  Father  ”  for 
God,3  together  with  the  sayings  and  parables  that  make 
clear  his  conception  of  Fatherhood.  There  was 
nothing  legal  and  magisterial  about  the  Semitic  idea 
of  fatherhood  as  there  was  in  Roman  law  and  after¬ 
wards  in  the  Latinized  Church.  The  Jews  have  al¬ 
ways  been  fond  and  compassionate  parents,  as  they  have 
always  been  fierce  enemies  to  alien  offenders.  Their 
own  moralists  often  warn  against  indulgence  to  children, 
showing  to  what  virtue  their  failings  leaned.  The 
typical  father  referred  to  by  Jesus  knows  what  his 
children  need,  gives  them  what  they  ask  as  a  matter  of 

1  "Corban,"  Mark  vii.  n-13.  2  Matt.  v.  21-22,  27-28. 

3  Cf.  C.  W.  Emmet,  Chap,  xviii. 

I98 


TEACHING  ON  FORGIVENESS 


course,  (“  What  man  is  there  of  you  whom  if  his  son 
ask  bread,  will  he  give  him  a  stone  ? 55  l)  It  is  impos¬ 
sible  to  read  all  that  is  said  and  implied  by  Jesus  about 
the  heavenly  Father  and  believe  that,  because  man  is 
constantly  offending,  God  is  in  a  constant  mood  of 
offence.  The  forgiving  soul  is  always  forgiven,  and 
no  mention  is  made  in  this  connection  of  repentance.2 
In  Matthew’s  characteristic  way  it  is  added  that  the 
unforgiving  soul  will  not  be  forgiven,  and  this  was 
apparently  copied  later  into  Mark  from  Matthew. 
Its  authenticity,  on  various  accounts,  is  more  than 
doubtful.3  It  remains  true  that  the  recognition 
of  God’s  forgivingness — which  recognition  is  con¬ 
stantly  called  forgiveness — is  only  really  possible  to  the 
soul  that  forgives,  for  only  by  itself  forgiving  can  it 
understand  the  divine  nature.  Conversely  this  most 
beautiful  quality  would  be  impossible  in  man  if  it  were 
not  derived  from  the  divine  nature. 

1  Matt.  vii.  9.  2  Matt.  vi.  14-15. 

*  Cf.  C.  W.  Emmet,  Chap.  xx. 


199 


CHAPTER  XVI 


TEACHING  ON  SIN  AND  SALVATION 

Jesus  The  teaching  of  Jesus  upon  sin  was  very  simple. 
nomanthat  “  There  is  none  good  but  God.5’  “  Ye  are  all  un¬ 
is  good.  profitable  servants.”  If  your  light  is  hidden  ;  if  you 
are  insipid ;  you  are  fit  for  nothing.  Whoever  is 
angry  with  his  brother,  or  despises  his  brother,  or 
thinks  improperly  of  a  woman,  or  refuses  generous 
service  to  an  oppressor  and  fails  wholesomely  to  forgive 
all  wrong,  is  a  sinner.  To  attempt  to  please  God  by 
only  trying  not  to  do  wrong  is  hopeless,  for  it  is  only  the 
effort  of  the  soul  to  save  itself,  the  consequence  of  which 
is  loss.  God,  the  Father  of  men,  spends  Himself  in 
positive  benefaction  for  men — both  good  and  evil  men. 
To  come  short  of  this  perfection  of  God  is  to  need  His 
constant  forgiveness,  in  the  sense  in  which  a  child  is 
always  needing  the  parent’s  forgiveness,  or  in  which  the 
faults  and  failings  of  an  ignorant  and  wayward  com¬ 
panion  are  always  needing  the  forgiveness  of  his  friend 
and  superior. 

The  best  Some  of  the  best  Jews  had  already  reached  almost  the 

J“£s-  same  conclusion  about  sin,  realizing  that  the  spiritual 

heai-tened  requirements  of  God  were  without  limit.  Paul’s 
by  the  -1  .  . 

universality  sense  of  past  sin  is  acute,  although  he  could  point  to  his 
°f  sm.  record  as  a  Jew  and  defy  criticism.  And  we  have  seen  1 
the  pathos  of  the  apocalyptic  seers ;  thus  again : 

1  Chapter  vi. 

200 


TEACHING  ON  SIN  AND  SALVATION 


“  Who  is  there  of  those  born  who  hath  not  transgressed  thy 
commandment  ?  .  .  . 

For  there  is  in  us  the  evil  heart  which  .  .  . 
hath  led  us  into  corruption, 
and  hath  shown  us  the  ways  of  death, 
and  made  known  to  us  the  paths  of  perdition  .  .  . 
and  this  not  of  a  few,  but  perchance  of  all  who  have  been.” — 
Apocalypse  of  Ezra ,  vii.  46-48. 

Like  Stoicism,  Judaism  held  no  doctrine  of  the  grace 
— i.e.  love — of  God  growing  up  gradually  in  a  wayward 
man.  Man  on  his  own  initiative  must  voluntarily 
repent,  voluntarily  reform,  in  order  to  be  saved.  God 
would  aid,  but,  though  His  aid  in  the  majority  of  cases 
seemed  insufficient,  He  would  do  no  more,  and  the  time 
of  probation  was  short,  and  the  good  qualities  of  the 
erring  were  of  no  value. 

This,  of  course,  was  a  higher  conception  of  salvation 
than  that  of  a  salvation  by  magical  rites — an  idea 
common  to  various  mystery  cults  of  other  nations. 
It  fostered  a  true  notion  of  individual  responsibility, 
encouraged  the  highest  aspiration ;  but,  as  their 
literature  attests,  it  failed  to  reform  the  nation  or  to 
give  peace  to  the  souls  of  those  who  hungered  for 
righteousness  and  were  not  filled. 

Because  such  good  souls  held  the  ideal  of  innocence  ; 
because  they  thought  that  sins  invalidated  the  virtues 
that  grew  side  by  side  with  them,  because  they  could 
not  understand  the  principle  of  the  wheat  and  tares, 
they  lost  hope  for  the  world.  Yet  the  fact  remained 
that,  however  universal  sin  was,  good  was  also  universal. 
There  have  always  been  good  parents,  good  children, 
good  brothers  and  good  friends  and  loyal  citizens  the 
world  over.  And  if  God,  immanent  in  all  the  good,  had 

201 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


The  cause 
of  Judaic 
moral 
despair. 


The  salva¬ 
tion  Jesus 
offered. 


been  thought  of  as  overcoming  the  evil  with  inexhaust¬ 
ible  patience,  it  would  have  been  possible  for  them  to 
rejoice  in  human  virtue  rather  than  despair  over 
human  sin.  But  the  gloom  of  these  more  sensitive 
Jews  was  caused,  not  by  the  universality  of  sin,  but 
by  the  other  beliefs  which  they  associated  with  that. 
The  first  was  the  mistaken  notion  of  goodness ;  the 
second,  that  they  had  to  rely  on  the  human  will, 
with  at  best  but  a  little  aid  from  an  external  God, 
to  overcome  unruly  impulses ;  and,  not  recognizing 
any  robust  natural  virtue,  they  thought  that  sin 
was  always  victorious  in  their  souls  and  in  the  world. 
Weeping  over  a  perishing  world,  Salathiel,  wistful 
for  a  command  that  comes  not,  cries  that  if  God 
would  only  command  him  he  would  pray  : 

“  Do  thou  give  us  the  seed  and  culture  of  a  new  heart  whence 
may  come  fruits,  so  that  everyone  that  is  corruptible  may  be 
able  to  live  ”  (i.e.  live  righteously  so  as  not  to  be  destroyed  at 
the  judgment). — Apocalypse  of  Ezra ,  viii.  6. 

It  was  just  this  “  seed  and  culture  of  a  new  heart,” 
growing  in  the  imperfect,  impulsive  life  of  man,  that 
Jesus  offered  in  his  doctrine  of  the  constant,  inalienable 
friendship  and  forgiveness  of  God,  and  of  the  life  of 
prayer  by  which  man  can  enter  into  this  friendship. 

The  goodness  that  Jesus  taught  was  to  come  by  the 
inspiration  of  God,  whose  character  was  such  that  sin 
awakes  in  Him  only  compassion  and  provokes  Him  only 
to  impart  His  own  energy  of  goodness  to  all  who  ask. 

<£  Ask  and  it  shall  be  given  you  ; 

Seek  and  ye  shall  find  ; 

Knock  and  it  shall  be  opened  to  you  ; 

For  everyone  that  asketh  receiveth.” 

Matt.  vii.  7-8. 


202 


TEACHING  ON  SIN  AND  SALVATION 


The  emphasis  is  upon  the  “  everyone.”  That  was  The  gift  of 
one  point  in  which  Judaism  failed.  It  taught  that the  Spmt* 
some  works,  some  correct  emotion,  were  necessary  to 
constitute  a  claim  upon  God  before  there  could  be  any 
assurance  that  the  prayer  would  be  heard.  Christian 
teachers  also  have  taught  that  conditions  were  laid 
down  by  God,  and  only  on  the  fulfilment  of  these 
would  the  Holy  Spirit  be  given.  Jesus  said,  “  Men 
ought  always  to  pray  and  not  to  faint.”  The  “always” 
is  futile  if  it  means  only  “  sometimes  when  certain  con¬ 
ditions  are  fulfilled.”  Jesus  went  about  among  all 
sorts  of  his  countrymen  saying,  in  practice,  Whether  is 
it  easier  for  God  to  inspire  goodness  in  you  or  to  heal 
your  diseases  ?  If  I  by  the  power  of  God  heal  your 
diseases  and  insanities,  then  you  have  access  to  the 
kingdom — that  condition  of  inspired  goodness  in 
which  the  hopeless  struggle  with  sin  is  for  ever  over. 

In  the  Book  of  Enoch  the  reign  of  God  is  thus  described  : 

“  All  shall  walk  in  his  ways  since  righteousness  never  for¬ 
sakes  him  : 

With  him  shall  be  their  dwelling-places,  and  with  him 
their  heritage.” — lxxi.  16. 

It  is  part  of  every  apocalyptic  description  of  the 
reign  of  God  that  those  who  attain  to  a  share  in  it 
should  be  without  sin. 

Jesus  not  only  taught  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  to  be 
had  by  all  men  for  the  asking,1  but  that  the  Spirit  is  <. 
essential  to  the  good  life.  This  present  necessity  of 
constant  divine  co-operation — i.e.  inspiration  or  inward 
help — was  new.  A  life  of  goodness  and  power,  upheld 

1  Before  Christ  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  was  conceived  as  a  rare  and 
supernatural  experience;  Jesus,  as  it  were,  naturalized  the  Spirit  in 
the  town  of  Mansoul.  The  initial  and  principal  factor  in  human 
holiness  before  Christ  was  man’s  will ;  after  Christ,  the  Spirit  of  God. 

20t 

•J  *  * 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Pre- 

Christian 
doctrine  of 
the  Spirit. 


by  the  influence  or  inspiration  of  God,  was,  as  we  have 
seen,1  a  common  idea  in  connection  with  the  life  of  the 
righteous  in  a  future  reign  of  God  : 

“  They  shall  be  made  like  unto  the  angels, 

And  be  made  equal  to  the  stars, 

And  they  shall  be  changed  into  every  form  they  desire, 
From  beauty  into  loveliness.” 

Apocalypse  of  Baruch ,  xlix.  io. 

“  The  souls  of  the  righteous  are  in  the  hands  of  God  .  .  . 
They  that  trust  in  him  shall  understand  truth, 

And  the  faithful  shall  abide  in  him  in  love.” 

Wisdom  of  Solomon ,  iii.  I,  9. 

In  teaching  that  this  kingdom,  thought  of  as  future, 
was  already  existing  in  the  unseen,  within  the  reach  and 
grasp  of  men  who  could  draw  it  into  the  visible  and 
temporal  order,  *  Jesus  taught  that  the  goodness  and 
power  of  such  men — i.e.  the  children  of  the  kingdom — 
were  to  be  of  God.  Everyone  could  see  that  the  lily  is 
clothed  by  the  unfolding  of  the  life  within,  as  the 
stature  of  a  man  is  attained  by  inward  vitality  ;  that 
the  food  of  the  birds  also  is  of  natural  growth,  and  their 
faculty  for  finding  it  is  within  them.2  To  assert  that 
God  is  acting  in  such  ways  was  to  assert  divine  imman¬ 
ence  in  the  simple  and  the  common  things  of  life. 

Before  Je6us  came  men  did  not  recognize  this  power 
of  the  Spirit  to  make  and  keep  them  good,  because  they 
looked  for  evidence  of  his  operation  in  wrong  ways, 
in  negative  ways,  hoping  merely  to  overcome  bad  habits 
and  resist  temptation,  or  in  positive  ways  expecting 
supernatural  excitement  to  give  knowledge  or  de¬ 
light.  The  parable  of  the  house  swept  and  gar¬ 
nished  shows  that  the  negative  way  is  not  God’s 

1  See  Chap,  vh  pp.  79-81.  2  Matt.  vi.  26-30. 


204 


TEACHING  ON  SIN  AND  SALVATION 


way.1  In  our  Lord’s  teaching  a  good  heart  brings 
forth  good  fruit  as  naturally  as  a  good  tree.  The 
gift  of  God  to  men  that  ask  is  the  good  heart  that 
always  shows  loving-kindness  to  friend  and  foe,  that 
out  of  its  good  treasure  of  traffic  with  God  brings 
good  things  for  the  world.  “  Come  with  me  and 
I  will  make  you  fishers  of  men.”  “  Man  shall  not  live 
by  bread  alone.”  “  Have  salt  in  yourselves  and  be  at 
peace  with  one  another.”  “  If  thine  eye  be  single  thy 
whole  body  shall  be  full  of  light.”  “  Blessed  are  your 
eyes  for  they  see.”  “  Many  prophets  and  kings  have 
desired  to  see  the  things  that  ye  see.”  These  are  all 
sayings  that  suggest  that  the  salvation  which  God 
would  give  freely  to  those  who  ask  Him  was  energy  for  a 
new  benevolent  activity  which  would  be  like  a  lusty 
overgrowth  of  good  from  under  which  an  old,  evil  crop 
would  dwindle.  The  kingdom  in  the  heart  would  be 
like  a  grain  of  mustard  seed,  and,  moreover,  it  would 
grow  while  he  who  had  received  it  slept  and  waked  and 
knew  not  how  it  grew ;  but  the  grain,  the  crop,  the 
outcome  of  good,  would  be  obvious.  It  was  not  a 
doctrine  that  interfered  with  the  doctrine  of  causa¬ 
tion  :  the  seeds  of  evil  brought  forth  evil,  but  just 
as  evil  habits  would  choke  off  the  seed  of  good  in¬ 
tentions  which  were  not  rooted  in  the  good  heart 
inspired  by  God,  so  faith  that  appropriated  the  generous 
energy  of  God  would  produce  a  crop  that  choked  off 
the  weaker  plants  of  evil. 

The  teaching  as  to  receiving  the  kingdom,  or  God 

1  Matt.  xii.  44.  The  saying  about  the  kingdom,  or  house,  divided 
against  itself  (Luke  xi.  18) — understood  by  the  evangelists  to  refer  to 
Beelzebub  casting  out  demons — is  extraordinarily  suggestive  of  a  soul 
trying  to  negate  some  unruly  impulse  or  bad  habit  and  failing  in  that, 
and,  because  attention  is  centred  on  the  sin,  in  all  else. 

205  . 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


The  true 
nature  of 
the  gift  of 
the  Spirit. 


Himself,  or  the  divine  energy  of  Jesus,  into  the  heart 
expresses  an  idea  of  a  personal  salvation  that  operated 
from  within  the  heart  outwards,  filling  the  whole  life 
with  a  world-saving  energy,  “  Whoso  shall  not  receive 
the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  ...  he  shall  not  enter 
therein”  (Mark  x.  15).  “  Whosoever  shall  receive  me 

receiveth  him  that  sent  me  ”  (Mark  ix.  37).  “  Whoso 

receiveth  you  receiveth  me,  and  he  that  receiveth  me 
receiveth  him  that  sent  me  ”  (Matt.  x.  40).  It  is 
evidently  “  spiritual  hospitality  ”  that  is  intended  in 
these  texts,  as  God  the  Father  could  not  otherwise  be 
entertained.  What  is  included  in  “  receiving  ”  the 
kingdom,  the  Father,  Jesus  himself,  or  the  apostle,  or 
even  “  a  little  child,”  is  the  notion  of  a  life  not  only 
wholesome  and  dynamic,  but  expansive  with  regenera¬ 
tive  outward  force.  Such  a  force  had  been  evident 
in  the  greatest  of  the  long  line  of  prophets,  and  was 
most  obvious  to  them  all  in  the  Baptist ;  u  never¬ 
theless  he  that  is  least  in  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  is 
greater  than  he”  (Matt.  xi.  11).  The  greatness  of 
“  the  least  ”  could  only  be  by  the  in-dwelling  of  God. 

Again,  the  inspiration  given  freely  by  God  to  man 
was  not  supernatural  power  or  knowledge. 

First,  it  was  not  supernatural  power.  The  healing  of 
sick  people  or  “  demoniacs  ”  by  an  authoritative  word 
may  be  a  natural  power  which  wrorks  by  suggestion 
received  by  the  inward  faith  which  is  a  necessary  con¬ 
dition.  It  is  of  God,  as  is  all  beneficent  action.  It  is 
the  healing  of  the  bad  habits  of  the  body-governing 
part  of  the  human  mind,  just  as  reformation  produced 
by  conversion  is  the  healing  of  the  bad  habits  of  the 
conscious  mind.  The  power  of  healing  and  convert¬ 
ing  by  imparting  faith  and  suggestion  was  certainly  to 

206 


TEACHING  ON  SIN  AND  SALVATION 


be  a  natural  outcome  of  the  Spirit  which  God  would 
give.  As  we  now  know,  but  Jesus  alone  then  divined, 
it  was  not  in  itself  supernatural  power,  nor  did  it 
imply  the  possession  of  magical  powers. 

Supernatural  knowledge  was  certainly  not  offered. 

The  disciples  certainly  “  received  Jesus,”  and,  according 
to  the  teaching,  “  received  the  Kingdom  ”  and  re¬ 
ceived  the  Spirit  in  their  hearts ;  but  they  mis¬ 
understood  Jesus  frequently,  and  misunderstood  at 
times  the  whole  spirit  of  his  gospel.  “  Ye  know  not 
what  spirit  ye  are  of.”  “  Ye  know  not  what  ye  ask.” 

Further  it  is  said,  “  No  man  knoweth  the  times  and  the 
seasons  but  the  Father.”  Neither  to  the  individual  nor 
to  the  community  was  offered  supernatural  theoretic 
knowledge  or  infallibility  about  the  things  of  God  ;  yet 
part  of  the  salvation  of  Jesus — one  fruit  of  this  im¬ 
parted  divine  energy  to  be  received  by  faith — was  the 
clear  insight  of  the  individual  mind  as  to  the  right  word 
or  right  action  for  the  hour — a  practical,  not  a  theoretic, 
wisdom. 

The  teaching  of  modern  psychology  about  the  Modem 
manner  of  human  development  is  in  entire  harmony  g^y^an^ 
with  this  teaching.  Psychology  shows  us  that  no  man  ^°u.nt  of 
is  good ;  for,  while  man’s  primitive  habits  of  mind,  harmony 
latent  in  the  most  highly  civilized,  are  constantly  pro-  teaching  of 
ducing  unruly  impulses  and  conduct  of  a  lower  type  Jesus, 
than  the  reason  approves,  it  is  also  true  that  man’s 
perception  of  what  is  fitting  or  desirable  or  good  is 
constantly  advancing.  He  who  almost  succeeds  in 
living  up  to  his  own  ideal  to-day  will  to-morrow  have  a 
higher  ideal  to  which  he  finds  himself  unable  to  con¬ 
form.  Thus  the  man  or  the  community  that  does  not  Sin  is 
seek  to  live  up  to  what  is  seen  to  be  good,  sins — i.e.  umversa 

207 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


and  is  not 
to  be  over¬ 
come  by 
efforts  to 
attain 
sinlessness. 


Vision  and 
inspiration 
required. 


transgresses  or  comes  short — and  the  man  or  com¬ 
munity  that  almost  attains,  at  once  acquires  a  higher 
notion  of  goodness  to  which  the  half-trained,  impulsive 
life  fails  to  conform.  Sin,  therefore,  is  universal.  The 
spiritual  requirements  of  the  good  are  without  limit, 
just  because  life  is  a  development.  The  nature  of 
man  is  such  a  combination  of  intelligence  and  will  and 
instinctive  life  that  to  all  the  practice  of  civilized 
virtues  will  always  be  both  possible  and  so  difficult  that 
effort  will  flag  ;  the  sow  of  the  animal  soul  will  always 
return  at  times  to  the  wallowing  that  for  untold  ages  in 
the  past  was  its  legitimate  delight  but  is  now  its  vice. 
It  is  impossible  to  get  rid  of  the  inconvenient  fact 
which  religion  calls  “  sin  ”  by  being  irreligious. 

If  again  we  turn  to  the  psychologist  who  has  thus 
explained  the  nature  of  sin  and  ask,  How,  then,  can  man 
come  at  peace  and  harmony  within  ?  how  can  he  unify 
his  older  and  newer  natures,  which  St  Paul  called  “  the 
old  Adam  ”  and  “  the  new  man  ”  ?  we  shall  be  told 
that  bracing  the  will,  with  self-chiding  and  self- 
abasement,  is  futile  ;  and  so  also  is  an  easy  pace  along 
the  line  of  least  resistance.  By  either  of  these  methods 
man  only  reaches  greater  discontent  or  drugged  despair. 
The  right  way  of  reaching  unity  is  to  fill  the  imagina¬ 
tion,  not  only  with  the  ideal  to  be  attained,  but  with  the 
thought  of  the  self  as  attaining.  The  mind  must  be 
nerved  and  nourished  by  the  suggestion  that  attain¬ 
ment  is  possible.  This  vision  of  the  ideal,  this  belief 
in  his  own  power  to  attain,  is  enough  ;  the  suggestion 
will  work  without  conscious  effort,  and,  slowly  or 
quickly,  a  unification  of  the  nature  will  take  place,  and 
man  will  be  a  new  creature,  harmonious  with  his  pro¬ 
gressive  environment.  This  is  the  salvation  which  the 

208 


TEACHING  ON  SIN  AND  SALVATION 

psychologist  points  out.  What  he  says  is  true.  The 
trouble  is  that  the  ideal  right  seldom  intrigues  the 
human  imagination,  and  self-inspiration  is  so  dull  a 
process  that  few  persist  in  its  practice. 

Let  us  now  turn  back  to  the  insight  of  religious 
genius  which  Jesus  of  Nazareth  flashed  upon  this 
human  condition.  He  also  saw  that  the  sinner’s  imagi¬ 
nation  must  be  filled  with  the  idea  and  with  the  con¬ 
viction  that  it  could  be  attained  ;  but  the  ideal  was  not 
abstract  and  passive,  as  mere  ideals  of  right  are  ;  it 
was  the  living,  loving,  personal  God,  invisible  but  not 
unknowable,  outwardly  an  alluring  attraction,  in¬ 
wardly  the  dynamic  of  a  new  life. 

“  Be  perfect  as  your  Father  in  heaven  is  perfect  ” — • 
your  Father  whose  activity  is  manifested  in  the  beauty 
and  growth  and  care-free  life  of  plant  and  bird,  and  in 
the  natural  parental  and  brotherly  goodness  of  your 
hearts.  Be  inwardly  inspired  by  this  Father,  who  will 
give  His  Spirit  to  all  who  ask.  Compare  with  this 
St  Paul’s  personal  experience,  repeated  down  all  the 
ages  of  Christendom,  “  I  can  do  all  things  through 
Christ  that  strengtheneth  me.”  1 

1  “If  the  spirit  of  God’s  love  is  as  a  breath  over  the  world, 
suggesting,  strengthening  the  love  which  it  desires,  seeking  man  that 
man  may  seek  God,  itself  the  impulse  which  it  humbles  itself  to  accept 
at  man’s  hands ;  how  much  more  is  this  love  of  God,  in  its  incon¬ 
ceivable  acceptance  and  exchange,  the  most  divine,  the  only  unending 
intoxication  in  the  world.” — Arthur  Symonds. 


Jesus 
declared 
God  to  be 
the  object 
of  vision 
and  the 
bestower  of 
inspiration. 


209 


O 


CHAPTER  XVII 


The  call 
of  Jesus. 


Self-denial 
not  in  the 
forefront  of 
the  call. 


SUMMARY 

We  have  realized  that  the  Jewish  thirst  for  retributive 
punishment  for  the  unrighteous,  and  the  Greek  longing 
for  a  refuge  in  which  individual  souls  could  save 
themselves  out  of  a  lost  world,  are  the  contemporary 
currents  of  thought  which  w^ould  be  the  most  likely  to 
have  filtered  into  the  oral  tradition  of  Jesus’  teaching 
before  it  wTas  written  in  final  form.  We  have  seen 
that  these  two  ideas  appear  to  be  inconsistent  with  the 
hope  of  the  world  as  preached  by  Jesus,  and  that  by 
eliminating  them  from  the  story  of  the  ministry  and 
teaching,  we  have  in  that  story  the  call  to  a  salvation 
that  is  the  more  intensely  personal  because  it  is  a  group 
salvation  and  international.  What  is  that  call  ? 

Many  would  lay  the  first  emphasis  upon  the  demand 
which  Jesus  made  for  renunciation.  “  He  that  loveth 
father  or  mother  or  house  or  lands  more  than  me  can¬ 
not  be  my  disciple.”  “  Take  up  the  cross.”  “  Leave 
all  in  which  you  delight.”  All  that  is  in  the  “  good 
news  ”  of  Jesus,  but  it  does  not  come  first.  It  comes  in 
a  place  where  it  is  as  natural  as  are  any  other  of  the 
renunciations  of  love. 

We  have  seen  with  what  black  shadow  and  lurid 
light  the  Jewish  thought  of  the  coming  of  the  Reign  of 
God  was  invested  ;  and  yet,  while  John,  living  in  this 
shadow,  offered  reformation  of  life  and  baptism  as  a 

210 


SUMMARY 


merciful  means  of  escape  from  world-wide  destruction, 
he  made  no  demand  for  entire  self-sacrifice.  His  appeal 
was  to  the  motive  of  self-interested  fear ;  and  Jesus 
spoke  of  John’s  preaching  as  a  call  to  mourn.  If  the 
more  drastic  demand  of  self-denial  that  Jesus  made 
upon  his  followers  could  be  contrasted  with  John’s  call 
as  wedding  music  contrasts  with  the  dismal  wail  of 
mourning,  it  is  evident  that  the  demand  for  entire  self- 
sacrifice  must  have  been  associated  with  a  joyful  pur¬ 
pose  and  inspired  by  natural  longing  for  its  achieve¬ 
ment.  A  mother  whose  child’s  life  can  be  saved  in 
sickness  by  toil  of  hers ;  a  father  who  sees  that  his  son 
can  be  saved  from  disaster  by  some  effort  of  his ;  a 
lover  who  must  renounce  much  to  win  what  he  sup¬ 
remely  desires ;  a  patriot  who  knows  that  the  land  he 
loves  can  be  successfully  defended — these  do  not  heed 
hunger  or  thirst  or  cold  or  contumely  or  loss  or  pain. 

Their  vocation  is  not  to  the  incidental  loss  but  to  the 
assured  gain.  The  love  of  self  and  of  possessions  is  over¬ 
balanced  by  the  longing  for  something  else  :  the  vision 
of  the  accomplishment  of  their  purpose  makes  them 
almost  oblivious  of  what  they  lose  or  set  aside.  It  was 
Jesus  who  finally  drove  home  the  lesson  that,  except 
as  incidental  to  altruistic  purpose,  self-immolation  was 
irrelevant  to  salvation. 

Jesus  called  his  followers  to  the  joy  of  unbroken  and  Call  to 
confident  friendship  with  a  God  wholly  kind,  the  joy  of  |v)th<GodP 
co-operation  with  that  God  in  saving  the  whole  world,  and  co- 
The  Jews,  as  a  race,  had  developed  a  beautiful  concep-  STS 
tion  of  God  as  the  friend  of  the  righteous.  They  had 
learned  and  taught  that  personality  is  a  divine  attribute,  the  world, 
and  that  man  can  find  in  God,  not  only  his  own  ethical 
values,  but  a  living,  personal  friendship  whose  influence 

21 1 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


raises  his  values  and  helps  to  their  realization.  As  the 
idea  of  God  is  the  most  formative  of  all  ideas,  this — 
which  was  so  far  the  highest  idea  of  God — was  the 
priceless  contribution  of  the  Jewish  race.  We  ail 
recognize  the  intense  friendship  that  Judaism  realized 
between  God  and  the  righteous  man  or  righteous  com¬ 
munity.  “  Underneath  are  the  everlasting  arms.” 
“  I  have  trusted  in  thy  loving-kindness.”  “  The  Lord 
is  my  shepherd  ...  he  restoreth  my  soul.”  But,  as  con¬ 
temporary  literature  shows,  such  privilege  was  thought 
of  as  only  for  the  righteous.  The  description  of  their 
perfect  enjoyment  of  such  friendship,  after  all  sinners 
had  been  destroyed, was  frequent  in  the  Jewish  writings: 

“  And  the  righteous  shall  be  in  the  light  of  the  sun, 

And  the  elect  in  the  light  of  eternal  life  :  .  .  . 

And  they  shall  seek  the  light  and  find  righteousness  with  the 
Lord  of  Spirits  : 

There  shall  be  peace  to  the  righteous  in  the  name  of  the 
Eternal  Lord. 

And  after  this  it  shall  be  said  to  the  holy  in  heaven 

That  they  should  seek  out  the  secrets  of  righteousness,  the 
heritage  of  faith  : 

For  it  has  become  bright  as  the  sun  upon  earth, 

And  the  darkness  is  past.” — Book  of  Enoch ,  lviii.  3-5. 

But  a  God  who  could  thus  be  in  communion  with 
some  human  beings  and  yet  destroy  the  great  majority 
of  their  fellows  has  always  been  a  cause  of  stumbling 
and  offence  to  the  humane.  The  more  zealously  and 
clear-sightedly  an  avenging  God  is  worshipped,  the 
more  religion  dehumanizes.1  The  more  man  by  the 

1  The  dehumanizing  process  may  be  seen  in  the  persecuting 
activities  of  powerful  sects  and  the  anti-social  exclusiveness  of  weak 
sects.  In  Christendom  all  instances  of  persecution  and  exclusiveness 
would  seem  to  be  due  to  the  acceptance  of,  and  emphasis  on,  Jewish 
eschatology. 


212 


SUMMARY 


love  of  God  becomes  humane,  the  more  he  has  always 
slurred  over  or  explained  away  this  doctrine  of  divine 
destructiveness.  Again,  the  difficulty  of  deciding  by 
what  means  or  character  the  good  could  justly  be 
raised  so  far  above  their  fellows  has  produced  in 
religious  thought  unending  subterfuge  and  division.  I 
believe  that  Jesus  cut  this  Gordian  knot  by  the  sword  of 
the  Spirit  when  he  said  that  none  were  righteous,  but 
God  was  the  friend  and  Saviour  of  all. 

I  have  tried  to  show  that,  starting  with  the  pro-  Individual 
phetic  conception  of  a  coming  Golden  Age  or  reign  of  of* goocf11^ 
God  into  which  all  nations  should  gather,  Jesus,  first,  set  nature  and 
before  his  followers  exactly  what  every  reformer  to-day  sense, 
acknowledges  to  be  the  great  need  of  humanity — the 
rational  and  good-natured  co-operation  of  all  men  with 
their  neighbours,  all  classes  with  each  other,  all  nations 
with  one  another.  This  could  only  be  attained  by 
sublimating  the  combative  instinct  into  an  effort  to 
overcome  the  evils,  moral  and  physical,  which  hinder 
the  development  of  our  common  humanity.  It  could 
only  be  had  by  the  development  of  common  sense — that 
is  to  say,  by  a  reasonable  way  of  looking  at  what  is  the 
common  good  of  all  and  being  guided  by  that. 

Secondly ,  Jesus  taught  that  the  method  of  this  salva¬ 
tion  was  the  teaching  of  every  man  by  his  neighbour. 

This  suggests  why  such  sayings  as  that  about  the  mote 
and  the  beam  were  expressed  with  such  extraordinary 
strength  of  figure  ;  and  why  the  warnings,  “  Do  not 
judge  ;  do  not  condemn  ;  do  not  be  annoyed  or  call 
your  brother  a  fool,”  were  coupled  with  forecasts  of  the 
dire  results  of  disobedience  to  the  warning.  Alas  for 
the  world  !  alas  for  the  Church  !  how  little  has  he  been 
heeded  !  The  house  has  been  built  upon  the  sand 

21 3 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 

again  and  again,  and  again  and  again  we  have  seen  it 
fall. 

This  method  of  man  to  man,  woman  to  woman,  pro¬ 
paganda  was  the  means  whereby  the  universal  salvation 
became  intensely  personal,  because  it  was  the  intensive 
cultivation  of  group  excellence.  It  was  a  responsi¬ 
bility  laid  on  every  man,  woman  and  child  to  sweeten 
the  home,  the  village,  the  town — to  convert  the 
world  by  attraction.  Clearly  this  could  not  be  done 
by  any  neglect  of  the  proper  business  of  each,  but  only 
by  excellence  and  sweetness  of  spirit.  Jesus  set  the 
example  by  beginning  to  teach  and  to  heal  in  his  own 
community  and,  as  Luke  would  have  it,  in  his  own 
village.  Can  anyone  read  the  passage,  Luke  vi.  27-42, 
concerning  love  to  enemies,  consideration  for  neigh¬ 
bours,  and  the  necessity  for  unassuming  and  undidactic 
behaviour,  without  realizing  that  Jesus  taught  that  it 
was  only  by  making  his  neighbour  forgiving  as  well  as 
himself  that  each  man  could  be  saved  ?  To  tempt  the 
neighbour  to  be  thus  forgiving,  the  convert  of  Jesus  had 
to  be  “  very  nice  ”  to  that  neighbour.  This  was  easy 
enough  while  he  was  a  person  who  was  nice  to  the  Jews ; 
but  when  he  was  the  collector  of  Roman  taxes,  the 
Roman  policeman,  the  Roman  civil  servant — ask  the 
members  of  any  conquered  and  oppressed  nation  if  that 
was  easy  !  Or  again,  if  the  neighbour  was  a  brother  who 
had  done  a  bitter  wrong,  then  again  it  was  not  easy. 
But  even  all  this  might  have  been  easy  in  the  sense  of 
being  easygoing  had  it  not  been  necessary  at  the  same 
time  to  uphold  all  the  principles  of  truth  and  equity. 
Justice  is  coupled  with  the  love  of  God  :  the  new 
righteousness  must  exceed  that  of  the  law.  Any 
breach  of  righteous  behaviour  would  bring,  sooner  or 

214 


SUMMARY 


later,  terrible  consequences  which  could  not  by  any 
means  be  cancelled  or  annulled  but  only  overcome  of 
good.  Thus  we  see  that  the  mutual,  unconditioned 
forgiveness  of  all  men,  the  mutual  recognition  of  the 
law  of  moral  consequence,  was  the  distinctive  method  of 
Jesus. 

i Thirdly ,  permeating  both  the  demand  for  fine 
fellowship  and  for  the  personal  dissemination  of  kindli¬ 
ness,  is  the  practice  of  God’s  presence.  The  prayer  of 
childlike  petition,  of  confiding  expe-'  tation,  is  only  half 
of  the  duty  implied  by  the  new  do«  trine  of  divine  in¬ 
spiration  taught  by  Jesus.  As  common  as  the  feeding 
of  children  by  earthly  fathers,  so  common  is  God’s  good 
gift  of  the  Spirit.  The  Spirit  was  given  for  the  asking  ; 
and  the  inspired  souls,  the  children  of  the  kingdom, 
were  to  be  known  by  their  fruit.  Beneficence  of  life 
was  the  test.  He  that  humbly  serves  mankind  receives 
God  within  his  soul.  But,  likewise,  no  man  can  ade¬ 
quately  serve  mankind,  working  for  the  ideal  welfare  of 
the  world,  without  that  change  of  mind,  or  repentance, 
that  makes  him  conscious  of  his  dependence  upon  God 
for  constant  revelation  and  inspiration.  “  Can  the 
blind  lead  the  blind  ?  ”  God  reveals,  even  to  babes, 
the  wisdom  essential  to  goodness.  God  gives,  for 
faithful  asking,  spiritual  riches  that  those  who  do  not 
ask  do  not  get.  “  This  kind  cometh  not  out  but  by 
prayer.” 

Finally ,  some  motive  was  needed  to  make  men  eager 
to  live  with  God  for  God-like  ends.  The  passion  of 
personal  love  to  God,  the  vision  of  God  that  attracts 
personal  love,  could  alone  suffice.  The  motive  which 
causes  men  to  perform  wonders  in  disregard  of  all  other 
interests  is  always  love — love  of  kindred  or  country. 

2  1  5 


The 

almighti- 
ness  of  God 
reveals 
itself  in 
attracting 
free  spirits 
to  the 
divine  life. 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


God  had  to  be  seen  as  the  nearest  and  dearest  of  kin,  and 
as  the  whole  in  which  all  that  was  near  and  dear  could 
safely  abide,  in  order  that  all  the  instincts  that  make  for 
the  persistence,  the  well-being  and  the  protection  of  the 
race  should  be  gathered  up  in  such  love  to  Him  as 
would  make  service  natural,  the  intention  of  disloyalty 
impossible,  and  the  renunciation  by  the  will  of  all  that 
might  hinder,  a  matter  of  course. 

It  was  such  love  that  Jesus  called  the  “  faith  ”  to 
which  God’s  power  is  given.  He  said  that  God 
would  give  this  faith,  revealing  Himself  to  those  who 
prayed  as  men  pray  when  they  are  in  need.  And  some 
men,  looking  at  Jesus,  loved  him,  and  therefore  believed 
his  message  and  coveted  the  life  unto  God  which  he 
lived.  Through  him  they  realized  God.  He  not  only 
taught  them  what  God  is,  he  became  at  once  their 
symbol  for  God,  the  greatest  of  all  symbols  because 
living  intensely,  loving  greatly,  dynamic  with  passionate 
desire  for  the  welfare  of  the  world. 

Jesus  died  because  he  would  not  compromise  with  a 
lower  thought  of  God  or  with  the  low  idea  of  man 
implied  in  an  exclusive  religion.  In  his  death  God 
revealed  Himself  as  the  power  which  attracts  the 
perfect  and  glad  allegiance  of  the  free.  Compared 
with  such  power,  any  force  that  rules  by  being  able  to 
punish  and  destroy  rebels  is  as  nothing. 

It  is,  of  course,  not  within  the  scope  of  this  small  book 
to  discuss  the  theology  of  the  Cross.  I  would  only  ask 
the  reader  to  pause  here  to  realize  that  the  power  to 
benefit  wicked  men  and  at  the  same  time  suffer  gener¬ 
ously  and  uncomplainingly  at  their  hands,  thus  attract¬ 
ing  their  allegiance,  is  greater  than,  and  wholly  opposed 
to,  the  power  to  crush,  torture  and  destroy. 

216 


SUMMARY 


To  all  who  know  that  personal  relations  are  of  more 
account  than  all  the  universe  besides,  belief  that  God  is 
and  is  good  carries  with  it  belief  in  the  survival  of  per¬ 
sonality  after  death.  This  life  is  not  a  good  gift  unless 
the  values  of  personality  survive  death.  The  words  of 
the  Epistle  of  James  apply  here  :  “  Every  good  gift 
and  every  perfect  boon  is  from  above,  coming  down 
from  the  Father  of  lights,  with  whom  can  be  no  varia¬ 
tion,  neither  shadow  that  is  cast  by  turning.”  1  We 
need  not,  then,  turn  first  to  any  transcendental  doctrine 
to  explain  the  belief  that  death  could  not  hold  or 
change  the  soul  of  Jesus.  That  the  friendship  of  Jesus 
for  his  friends  was  stronger  than  death,  that  so  ardent 
and  vivid  a  personality  as  his  must  survive,  and  be  no 
faint  reflection,  no  pale  ghost,  but  more  strong  and 
vivid  when  set  free  from  material  conditions,  would  be  a 
natural  belief  to  men  who  lived  in  theocratic  habits  of 
thought.  “  God  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead  but  of  the 
living.” 

“  But  the  souls  of  the  righteous  are  in  the  hands  of  God,  .  .  . 

In  the  eyes  of  the  foolish  they  seemed  to  have  died  ;  .  .  • 

But  they  are  in  peace.  .  .  . 

They  shall  judge  nations,  and  have  dominion  over  peoples.” 

Wisdom  of  Solomon ,  iii.  1-3,  8. 

This  is  a  fragment  of  Judaic,  not  Christian  writing. 

Turning  now  to  history,  we  find  that  something 
certainly  happened  after  the  death  of  Jesus  which  gave 
to  the  depressed  and  frightened  disciples  a  tremendous 
impulse  of  exalted  joy  and  courage.  One  day  we  see 
them  a  small  despised  Galilean  sect,  all  their  crude  hopes 
shattered,  bereaved  alike  of  their  dearest  friend  and 

1  James  i.  17.  Some  sound  critical  opinion  still  attributes  this 
epistle  to  the  brother  of  Jesus. 


217 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


of  the  leader  whose  prestige  gave  them  what  little  im¬ 
portance  they  had,  disloyal,  terrified,  broken.  Another 
day,  soon  after,  we  see  them  an  indomitable  band, 
strong  with  sheer  joy  in  the  face  of  persecuting  author¬ 
ity,  setting  out  with  unwavering  faith  to  bring  joy  and 
comfort  and  new  power  to  mankind.1  This  much  is 
historic  fact,  as  is  also  the  large  result  of  it  upon  the 
world. 

What  concerns  us  further  here  is  the  undoubted  fact 
that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  believed  by  the  members 
of  the  conquering  school  of  his  disciples  to  be  living  in 
the  unseen  a  life  of  great  power  and  glory,  in  touch  with 
all  who  trusted  him,  supplying  their  spiritual  needs  ; 
and  that  through  this  belief  he  became,  in  fact,  the 
most  powerful  leader  whom  the  Western  world  has  seen. 
This  constituted  a  triumph  for  Jesus  only  in  so  far  as  the 
character  and  methods  believed  to  be  those  of  the 
unseen  Christ  were  the  same  as  the  character  and 
methods  of  Jesus  when  on  earth.  We  can  see  this 
by  a  glance  at  lesser  instances.  The  Antinomian  move¬ 
ments  that  from  time  to  time  founded  themselves  upon 
the  teaching  of  St  Paul  did  not  vindicate  St  Paul’s 
doctrine.  The  excesses  and  formalism  of  the  followers 
of  St  Francis  of  Assisi,  contradicting  the  very  spirit  of 
his  evangel,  testify  only  to  the  power  of  tendencies 
which  he  gave  his  life  to  oppose.2  These  cases  were  no 
sign  of  the  triumph  of  the  cause  they  nominally  repre¬ 
sented,  but  the  reverse.  In  so  far  as  the  Church  has 
taken  over  the  vindictive,  exclusive  spirit  of  Judaism, 
and  enthroned  these  with  Jesus  in  the  heavenlies, 
the  victory  has  been  to  his  opponents,  not  to  Jesus. 

1  Cf.  The  Mind  of  the  Disciples,  by  Neville  Talbot. 

2  See  Life  of  St  Francis,  by  Paul  Sabatier,  latter  half  of  Chapter  xv. 

218 


SUMMARY 


We  have  seen  that  the  simplicity  and  the  richness 
of  the  truth  which  Jesus  brought  into  the  world  was 
concerned  with  the  two  ideas  of  God  and  of  man. 
These  ideas  in  the  mind  of  Jesus  were  not  blurred  in 
any  pantheistic  conception,  but  were  distinct,  in  the 
sense  that,  for  Jesus,  there  could  be  friendship  between 
God  and  man.  Self  cannot  have  friendship  with 
itself  :  for  friendship  there  is  need  of  one  and  another 
or  others.  God  and  man  were  not  different  in  kind, 
i.e.  there  was  kinship  between  the  divine  Spirit  and 
each  human  spirit.  We  see  his  conviction  of  this 
kinship  expressed  by  Jesus  in  dispensing  with  all  the 
common  terms  in  use  to  suggest  divine  power  in 
favour  of  the  one  term,  <c  Father  ”  ;  and  the  great 
truth  was  confirmed  by  the  impression  Jesus  in  some 
way  undoubtedly  gave  his  followers,  that  “  Son  of 
Man  ”  and  “  Son  of  God  ”  were  equivalent  terms. 
Thus  the  distinction  between  God  and  man  was  so 
enclosed  in  the  larger  unity  of  kin  that  the  Father 
could  not  be  conceived  as  hostile  to  or  abhorring  man. 
The  Father’s  love  was  the  all-inclusive  power  within 
which  man  must  live  throughout  existence,  an  en¬ 
closing  sphere  beyond  which  man’s  soul  could  no 
more  wander  than  could  a  denizen  of  earth  rise  above 
our  atmosphere.  There  is  in  this  conception  a  sense  of 
proportion  strangely  at  variance  with  those  theo¬ 
cratic  schemes  of  thought  which  present  God  as 
injuring  man  on  account  of  ill-conduct.  The  infinite, 
omnipresent,  omnipotent,  creative  Love,  having  chosen 
to  give  birth  to  what  is  little,  local  and  frail,  cannot, 
without  contradiction,  be  thought  of  as  deviating  from 

219 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


the  course  of  creative  love  on  account  of  any  use  the 
creature  may  make  of  such  limited  freedom,  although 
the  created  and  finite  clearly  can  only  be  thought 
of  as  acquiring  power  and  transcending  its  limitations 
by  becoming  receptive  to  the  infinite  power  of  the 
Creator,  and  only  acquiring  happiness  by  becoming 
obedient  to  the  method  of  the  eternal  creation. 

The  notion  that  a  moral  power,  which  can  be 
thought  of  as  an  energy  of  all  good,  could  vent  anger 
on  what  is  only  beginning  to  be,  because  of  insub¬ 
ordination,  is  a  notion  that  can  only  exist  when  God 
and  man  are  thought  of  as,  in  some  sense,  on  equal 
terms. 

In  the  days  of  the  prophets  even  the  greatest  minds 
of  the  Jewish  race  could  do  this  because  their  highest 
conceptions  of  God  were  even  more  limited  than  ours. 
God  was  but  super-man.  God  was  thought  of  as 
appearing  under  some  imaginable  guise,  and  as  acting 
among  things  and  people  with  human  infirmities  of 
thought  and  will  and  feeling,  needing,  as  human 
rulers  need,  to  support  righteousness  by  penal  exac¬ 
tions  ;  needing,  as  human  chieftains  need,  a  following 
of  tribe  or  army  exclusively  His  own. 

But  after  the  time  of  the  prophets  new  habits  of 
thought  had  permeated  the  countries  of  the  Mediter¬ 
ranean  basin.  In  the  first  place,  knowledge  was 
increasing.  The  world,  as  man  knew  it,  was  becoming 
wider  and  more  complex ;  it  was  becoming  more 
difficult  to  think  of  its  Creator  and  ruler  as  super-man. 
Secondly,  philosophical  speculation  about  the  Mind 
at  the  back  of  the  universe,  the  supreme  Power,  the 
supreme  Reality,  had  tended  to  put  the  pictures  of 
God  which  abounded  in  Jewish  literature  in  the  same 

220 


SUMMARY 


class  as  the  images  of  other  mythologies.  These  could 
now  be  conceived  as  symbols  or  aspects  of  what  was 
behind,  what  was  beyond  and  above  the  power  of 
human  imagination.  No  nation,  however  separatist  in 
doctrine,  can  live  in  a  watertight  compartment  of 
thought ;  a  passing  word,  a  scrap  of  parchment,  a  rude 
drawing,  is  enough  to  convey  to  the  active  mind  a 
new  idea  to  which  existing  notions  must  be  adjusted. 
Certainly,  in  the  flux  of  armies,  of  trade,  of  travel,  in 
the  period  between  the  Macedonian  conquests  and  the 
time  of  Christ,  even  the  home-staying  Jew  of  Palestine 
— and  these  were  few  compared  with  the  Jews  of  the 
Dispersion — could  not,  and  did  not,  lock  out  the 
philosophic  thought  of  the  Greek  world.  The  genius 
of  the  Jew  was  for  poetry  rather  than  philosophy  ;  but 
we  see,  during  this  epoch,  the  God  of  his  thought 
retiring  into  a  more  distant  heaven,  because  more 
unapproachable,  more  unthinkable.  As  a  necessary 
consequence,  Jewish  literature  of  this  period  abounds 
in  divine  agents,  mediating  between  God  and  man, 
as  over  the  Empire  the  imagination  of  the  Gentile 
was  centring  devotion  and  hope  upon  such  divine 
agents  as  the  Saviour-Gods  of  the  Mystery  Religions. 
Among  the  Jews  devotion  turned  to  such  divine 
emanations  or  agents  as  the  Angel  of  the  Covenant, 
the  Wisdom,  the  Word  of  God,  etc. 

We  need  to  realize  clearly  that  imagination — the 
power  of  representing  intuitions  or  inferences  of  reason 
under  some  concrete  mental  image — is  essential  to 
the  human  mind.  The  moment  that  man  realizes 
that  God  is  beyond  man’s  power  to  know  fully  and  as 
He  is,  he  must  either  give  up  trying  to  deal  with  Him 
— i.t f.  give  up  religion — or  he  must  seek  to  know  such 

221 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


aspects  of  God  as  may  be  possible  to  human  thought, 
and  these  aspects  will  be  grasped  by  him  through 
mental  images  which  are  symbols.  He  may  think 
of  supreme  Power  as  an  energy,  like  electricity ;  he 
may  think  of  supreme  Wisdom  as  a  pervasive  atmo¬ 
sphere,  healing  and  refreshing ;  but  these  images, 
although  without  definite  shape  or  colour,  are  none  the 
less  images  and  symbols. 

The  advanced  religious  thought  of  the  Mediter¬ 
ranean  world  at  the  time  of  Christ  was  coming  to 
believe  that  God  must  be  thought  of  as  supreme  Power 
and  Goodness,  and  that  to  His  Goodness  must  belong 
Love  and  Truth  and  Beauty.  To  this  Greek  philo¬ 
sophy  and  the  Roman  genius  for  order  and  proportion 
in  things  social  had  contributed  ;  but  the  most  notable 
contribution  had  come  from  the  ethical  insight  of  the 
Jewish  prophets.  The  Greek  translation  of  the  Old 
Testament  was  very  widely  read  by  serious  Pagans. 
Everywhere  there  were  desire  and  questioning.  The 
world  of  the  first  century  was  crying  out  for  some 
adequate  common  symbol  or  manifestation  of  a  trans¬ 
cendent  God.  Agreement  in  common  language  and 
common  ideas  had  become  possible,  and  as  long  as 
there  was  disagreement  in  religious  thought,  religious 
energy  was  dissipated  in  intensifying  national  or  class 
distinctions  rather  than  conserved  for  the  search  for 
goodness  and  truth.  Everywhere  men  were  trying, 
according  to  the  measure  of  their  insight,  to  find  the 
right  idea  of  God. 

We  know  that  whenever  a  great  genius  has  appeared 
in  history,  lesser  minds  have  been  at  work  on  the 
problems  that  he  solves.  It  was  the  hour  best  fitted  to 
produce  a  genius  in  religious  thought.  In  this  little 

222 


SUMMARY 


book,  while  attempting  to  show  that  Jesus  Christ  gave 
a  wholly  new  conception  of  power  and  of  goodness, 
it  has  been  desirable  to  keep  entirely  within  the  bounds 
of  history  for  my  facts.  It  is  not  within  my  scope  to 
discuss  whether,  in  transcending  the  separation  caused 
by  death  as  other  men  do  not  transcend  it  and  making 
himself  known  to  men  as  still  living  and  teaching 
though  invisible,  he  offered  himself  to  the  world  as  an 
immortal  manifestation  and  agent  of  God.  I  would 
only  suggest  that  the  world  was  then  in  desperate  need, 
not  only  of  an  ideal  interpretation  of  goodness  and 
truth,  but  of  just  such  a  living  symbol  or  mediator  or 
agent  as  the  early  Church  believed  Jesus  to  be. 

We  have  seen  that,  while  there  is  reason  to  be¬ 
lieve  that  Jesus  gave  his  own  unique  interpretation 
of  power  and  goodness,  the  Church  has  sought  to 
glorify  both  God  and  Christ  by  ascribing  to  Deity 
a  character  to  which  Jesus  laid  no  claim,  and  which 
he  did  not  attribute  to  God,  a  character  fashioned 
out  of  cruder  and  more  primitive  human  notions. 
Yet  the  Church  has  passed  on  to  each  generation  of 
Christians  the  belief  that  in  the  unseen  world  the 
same  Jesus  who  lived  on  earth  is  still  adequate  helper, 
guide  and  friend  to  those  who  seek  him,  captain  of 
souls,  urging  on  his  votaries  to  do  and  die  for  the 
salvation  of  the  whole  world  and  the  bringing  about  of 
an  earthly  paradise.  But  this  belief  in  him  is  the 
treasure  of  the  humble.  It  is  not  vouched  for  by  the 
theology  which  sets  him  upon  the  throne  of  the  apoca¬ 
lyptic  God,  or  identifies  him  with  the  Messiah  as  agent 
of  the  world’s  final  doom  who  at  best  can  attract  to  his 
offered  salvation  only  such  fortunate  souls  as  have 
received  the  proper  initiation. 

223 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


If  we  think  of  the  majesty  of  God  as  opposed  to,  or 
different  from,  the  humility  Jesus  exemplified ;  if 
we  think  of  the  power  of  God  as  in  no  way  subject  to 
limitations  of  life  as  Jesus  was  subject ;  if  we  think  of 
the  glory  of  God  as  a  blinding  magnificence  which 
did  not  shine  forth  in  the  gentleness  of  Christ ;  if  we 
think  of  God’s  holiness  as  something  opposed  to  friendly 
association  with  sinners — then  to  call  Jesus  God  is 
rather  to  vindicate  the  Judaism  that  opposed  him 
than  to  be  loyal  to  the  spiritual  illumination  he  offered. 

But  if  by  divine  transcendence  we  mean  an  eternal 
creative  Love  which,  entering  by  lowly  doors,  is  able 
to  develop  beauty  and  truth  and  goodness  in  all  that 
is — such  a  belief  may  bring  us  near  to  the  heart  of  “  the 
truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus.” 

We  can  only  be  depressed  by  current  controversies 
concerning  the  Godhead,  but  if  Jesus,  in  his  parti¬ 
cipation  in  human  joys,  in  his  fellowship  with  the 
faulty  and  the  fallen,  in  his  humorous  criticism  of 
the  righteous,  in  his  stern  denunciation  of  the  self- 
righteous,  in  his  love  of  fine  character,  in  his  passion 
for  truth  and  the  welfare  of  men,  in  his  power  to 
cure  the  ills  of  mind  and  body,  in  his  dependence  on 
human  friendship,  in  his  majestic  victory  over  defeat — 
if  in  all  this  the  historic  Jesus  is  the  true  and  living 
revealer  of  the  transcendent  God,  how  great  is  our 
hope 


224 


PART  III 

CRITICAL  VERIFICATION 


* 


» 


CHAPTER  XVIII 


WHAT  DO  WE  KNOW  OF  THE  TEACHING  OF  CHRIST  ? 

How  far  is  the  view  taken  in  the  preceding  chapters  The  teach- 
consistent  with  the  record  of  the  teaching  of  Christ  record  the 
as  preserved  to  us  in  the  Gospels  ?  In  answering  this 
question  we  are  bound  to  distinguish  between  the 
record  and  the  actual  teaching.  For  by  general  con¬ 
sent  the  Gospels  cannot  be  regarded  as  giving  us  the 
ipsissima  verba  of  Christ  himself.  We  have  indeed  to 
allow  for  several  stages  in  the  growth  of  the  record  : 

1.  The  original  teaching  as  given  on  various  occa¬ 
sions. 

2.  The  impression  made  on  diverse  groups  of  hearers 
(not  necessarily  altogether  identical  with  the  meaning 
intended  by  the  speaker),  the  modification  of  this 
impression  as  time  went  on,  and  the  attempt  to  convey 
it  to  others  by  word  of  mouth.  This  is  the  stage 
known  as  “  oral  tradition.” 

3.  The  earliest  written  records,  whether  in  Aramaic 
or  Greek.  The  most  important  of  these  is  the  docu¬ 
ment  known  as  “  Q.”  The  symbol  comes  from  the 
German  Quelle  or  Source  ;  it  is  simply  a  piece  of 
shorthand,  used  for  convenience,  and  we  might  equally 
well  use  S  (from  the  English  “  Source  ”).  It  stands 
for  the  supposed  document  from  which  is  derived  the 

227 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 

matter  common  to  Matthew  and  Luke  but  not  found 
in  Mark.1 

4.  Finally  we  come  to  our  existing  Gospels. 

It  is  obvious  that  in  all  these  stages,  however  care¬ 
fully  and  reverently  the  words  of  the  Master  were 
preserved,  there  is  danger  of  misunderstanding,  modi¬ 
fication  and  the  intrusion  of  alien  elements.  The 
differences  found  in  our  present  Gospels,  even  in 
recording  such  things  as  the  Lord’s  Prayer,  the  Beati¬ 
tudes,  or  the  words  used  at  the  Last  Supper,  prove 
that  changes  in  the  tradition  did  occur,  and  the  fact 
that  they  are  found  in  sayings  belonging  to  a  particular 
occasion,  e.g.  the  reply  to  the  High  Priest  at  the 
Trial,1  shows  that  we  cannot  always  account  for  them 
by  supposing  that  Jesus  was  in  the  habit  of  repeating 
his  teaching  in  slightly  different  forms.  No  doubt 
this  did  sometimes  actually  happen,  and  it  may  explain 

1  When  we  analyze  the  three  first  Gospels  we  find  in  all  three  a  good 
deal  of  material  which  is  in  substance  common  to  all :  this  is  derived 
from  Mark.  But  Matthew  and  Luke  have  also  a  further  series  of 
passages  in  common,  mainly,  though  not  entirely,  concerned  with  the 
teaching  of  Christ.  It  is  generally  held  that  they  drew  this  from  a 
document  (Q),  possibly  written  by  the  Apostle  Matthew.  On  this  view 
it  contained  all  the  non-Marcan  matter  which  is  found  in  both  Matthew 
and  Luke,  though  we  cannot  tell  how  much  more  it  contained,  since 
parts  of  it  may  have  been  reproduced  by  either  Matthew  or  Luke  alone. 

Canon  Streeter  has  lately  suggested  ( Hibbert  Journal,  xx.  No.  1) 
that  we  can  discover  in  the  Third  Gospel  an  earlier  document, 
probably  written  by  Luke  himself,  which  consisted  of  (a)  the  sections  of 
Q  which  he  incorporates ;  ( b )  the  large  amount  of  matter  peculiar  to 
this  Gospel.  These  two  elements  really  make  a  complete  Gospel ; 
subsequently  Luke  added  to  this  the  Marcan  sections.  This  view 
seems  very  probable  and  has  been  received  with  great  favour.  If  it 
is  true,  it  is  of  great  significance  for  our  purpose,  since  the  peculiar 
matter  of  Luke  is  then  very  early  in  date,  and  the  apocalyptic 
elements  in  it  are  very  slight.  It  is  therefore  an  important  confir¬ 
mation  of  the  hypothesis  that  these  elements  did  not  form  part  of  the 
authentic  teaching  of  Jesus.  See  p.  293  ff.  A  fuller  statement  of 
Canon  Streeter’s  view  will  be  found  in  his  book.  The  Four  Gospels. 

8  See  below,  p.  290. 


228 


THE  TEACHING  OF  CHRIST 


some  of  the  variations,  but  it  is  clear  from  a  compari¬ 
son  of  the  Gospels  that  in  most  cases  these  are  to  be 
accounted  for  as  modifications  which  have  taken 
place  in  the  course  of  tradition.  One  important 
cause  of  such  modifications  would  be  the  unconscious 
influence  of  contemporary  ideas  and  beliefs,  whether 
the  ideas  of  Judaism  inherited  by  the  first  disciples, 
or  the  desire  for  immediate  escape  from  a  lost  world, 
or  the  later  ecclesiastical  conceptions  which  developed 
with  the  growth  of  the  Christian  Church  and  of 
Christian  doctrine.  Criticism  has  recognized  fully  the 
influence  of  this  last  class  of  ideas  on  the  Gospels ; 
our  hypothesis  is  that  we  have  also  to  allow  for  the 
influence  of  the  two  first,  and  especially  of  the  ideas 
inherited  from  apocalyptic. 

Having  said  so  much,  we  must  beware  lest  we  There  is  a 
exaggerate  the  extent  to  which  the  teaching  has  been  wMcITwe” 
altered  and  jump  to  the  desperate  conclusion  that  we  can  depend, 
can  know  nothing  of  what  Jesus  really  taught.  The 
teaching  as  preserved  in  the  Synoptists  has  in  its  main 
outlines  a  consistency  and  originality  which  is  the 
guarantee  of  its  authenticity.  Even  if — which  is  far 
from  being  the  case — we  could  not  feel  any  absolute 
certainty  about  the  genuineness  of  any  single  saying, 
taking  them  one  by  one,  this  would  not  mean  that  the 
teaching  as  a  whole  could  be  regarded  as  a  later  inven¬ 
tion  attributed  to  Jesus  by  the  pious  imagination  of 
his  followers.  There  must  have  been  a  model  to 
suggest  imitations,  a  nucleus  round  which  accretions 
could  gather.  And  the  most  certain  parts  of  this 
nucleus  are  the  original,  the  unexpected,  the  half- 
understood  and  the  little  practised  elements,  about 
which  there  was  no  particular  controversy  in  the  early 

229 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Is  our 
method 
subjective  ? 


days  of  the  Church  and  which  it  was  not  to  the  interest 
of  any  particular  party  to  emphasize.  This  is  not  to 
say  that  everything  which  might  conceivably  be 
ascribed  to  any  such  controversial  influence  is  neces¬ 
sarily  a  later  addition  ;  but  it  is  a  sound  principle  of 
criticism  that  features  which  cannot  be  so  accounted 
for  are  most  likely  to  be  genuine,  and  that  features 
which  can  be  explained  in  this  way,  and  are  also  incon¬ 
sistent  with  what  is  clearly  original,  may  well  be 
unauthentic. 

It  is,  of  course,  often  argued  that  we  have  no  right 
to  reject  as  interpolations  anything  with  which  we 
may  not  agree,  when  our  MSS.  give  us  no  ground  for 
doing  so,  and  that  such  criticism  is  purely  subjective. 
It  should,  however,  be  understood  that,  except  in  a  few 
cases,  it  is  not  argued  that  a  passage  the  authenticity 
of  which  is  disputed  was  not  part  of  the  Gospel  as 
originally  published.  The  modifications  or  additions 
had  been  already  made,  or  were  made  by  the  writer  of 
the  Gospel  himself.  Further,  it  is  misleading  to  speak 
of  “  interpolations,”  unless  in  a  few  special  cases. 
The  term  suggests  a  fixed  record  of  Christ’s  teach¬ 
ing,  such  as  might  come  from  a  modern  reporter,  to 
which  additions  were  made  more  or  less  deliberately. 
But,  as  we  have  seen,  we  have  to  do  with  a  long- 
drawn-out  process  during  which  alterations  crept  in 
almost  insensibly  as  the  teaching  passed  from  one  to 
another.  Nearly  all  scholars  recognize  this  as  a  fact, 
and  if  so,  it  must  be  our  duty  to  recover  so  far  as  we 
can  the  original  form  of  the  teaching.  One  means  of 
doing  this  is  the  careful  comparison  of  the  Gospels  by 
which  we  attempt  to  reconstruct  the  original  sources 
which  lie  behind  them.  Another  is  the  general 

230 


THE  TEACHING  OF  CHRIST 

criterion  of  consistency  with  the  nucleus  and  general 
spirit  of  Christ’s  teaching.  This  last  may  be  to 
some  extent  “  subjective,”  in  that  each  reader  must 
form  his  own  judgment  on  historical  and  religious 
grounds  as  to  what  Christ  really  stood  for  and  how  far 
his  view  of  life  and  of  God  was  really  of  a  piece. 

But  wherever  we  find  a  general  consensus  of  opinion  as 
to  what  was  characteristic  of  Christ,  the  standard  ceases 
to  be  “  subjective  ”  in  any  depreciatory  sense.  When 
we  read  in  the  apocryphal  Gospel  of  Thomas  (chapters 
iii.,  iv.)  stories  of  the  child  Jesus  turning  a  companion 
who  annoys  him  into  a  withered  tree,  or  causing  the 
death  of  another  by  a  word,  we  do  not  need  elaborate 
discussions  of  the  date  and  authenticity  of  the  docu¬ 
ment  from  which  they  come.  We  reject  them  at  once 
because  we  are  sure  that  Jesus  did  not  do  such  things. 

Among  the  original  elements  in  the  sayings  of  Jesus  The  origin- 

none  is  more  important  or  more  certain  than  the  ^aJhfnJ^f 

teaching  about  the  Fatherhood  of  God.  It  meant  the  Father- 
•  i  -  *i  '  •  —  •  y  i  •  hood  of 

putting  God  m  a  new  light,  and  consistency  with  this  God. 

may  well  serve  as  a  touchstone  for  other  elements  of 

the  narrative  and  teaching. 

We  are  indeed  sometimes  told,  and  we  have  been 
told  lately,  that  there  is  nothing  original  in  this  central 
doctrine,  that  “  the  Fatherhood  of  God  is  a  character¬ 
istically  Jewish  doctrine,  found  in  equal  abundance  in 
the  Old  Testament  and  in  Rabbinic  literature.  .  .  . 

Until  controversy  with  Polytheism  began,  there  is  no 
sign  that  Christianity  ever  claimed  to  be  a  new  message 
as  to  the  nature  of  God.  The  God  of  Jesus  and  of 
his  disciples  is  identical  with  the  God  of  the  Jews.”  1 

1  Lake  and  Foakes- Jackson,  The  Beginnings  of  Christianity ,  Part  I. 
p.  401  £f. 


23I 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


The  avoid¬ 
ance  of 
other  titles 
by  Jesus. 


But  what  are  the  facts  ?  It  is  true  that  we  do  occa¬ 
sionally  find  in  the  Old  Testament  and  in  the  Apocrypha 
general  references  to  God  as  Father :  “  I  will  be  to 
him  a  father,”  “  Like  as  a  father  pitieth  his  own  chil¬ 
dren  ”  ;  or  we  read  in  the  Book  of  Wisdom  (xiv.  3), 
“  Thy  providence,  O  Father,  guideth  it  along.” 
Ecclesiasticus  (xxiii.  1,  4)  twice  has  a  prayer  beginning 
“  O  Lord,  Father  and  Master  of  my  life.”  And  in 
Rabbinic  literature,  though  always  of  a  date  later  than 
the  first  century  a.d.,  God  is  spoken  of  as  “  Heavenly 
Father  ”  or  “  Our  Father  in  Heaven.”  But  in  all 
such  cases  this  is  only  one  among  many  names  for  God, 
one  among  many  conceptions  of  His  nature  and  rela¬ 
tionship  to  man,  nor  is  it  ever  a  common  name  We 
find  strings  of  titles,  and  what  most  of  them  emphasize 
is  the  power  or  the  aloofness  of  God.  Look  at  these 
from  3  Maccabees :  “  Lord,  Lord,  King  of  the  Heavens 
and  sovereign  of  all  creation,  Holy  among  the  Holy 
ones,  only  ruler,  almighty  ” ;  “  King  of  great  power, 
most  high,  almighty  God,  who  governest  all  creation 
with  loving-kindness.”  No  doubt  among  such  titles 
the  term  “Father”  is  found,  as  it  is  once  found  in 
this  very  book,  but  how  much  else  besides  ! 

It  may  then  be  true  that  Jesus  did  not  invent 
the  title.  In  a  limited  sense  he  “  adopted  this  term 
for  God  from  the  popular  usage  of  his  time.”  1  But 
when  we  look  at  the  Gospels,  what  do  we  find  ?  Jesus 
simply  puts  aside  all  these  other  titles  of  previous  and 
contemporary  religious  thought  and  concentrates 
entirely  on  the  single  phrase  “  Father.”  He  appears 
never  to  have  used  the  terms  “  Almighty,”  “  Lord  of 
Hosts,”  “  Master  ”  and  “  King  ”  occur  once  (Matt. 

1  Dalman,  Words  of  Jesus,  p.  188. 

232 


THE  TEACHING  OF  CHRIST 


v.  35 ;  xxiii.  8) ;  even  “  Holy,”  apart  from  its  special 
application  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  not  used  of  God 
in  the  Synoptists.1  The  prayer  in  the  Garden  of 
Gethsemane  and  the  Lord’s  Prayer  begin  with  the 
simple  “  Father  ”  ;  in  the  Lord’s  Prayer  there  is  even 
some  doubt  about  the  additional  words  “  which  art  in 
Heaven.”  To  the  Jew  it  seems  to  have  been  little 
more  than  an  accident  which  term  he  happened  to 
use  of  God  ;  to  Jesus  there  was  just  one  name  and  no 
other. 

Again,  as  is  well  known,  there  had  grown  up  among  Jesus  is  not 
the  Jews  a  habit  of  avoiding  any  direct  reference,  not  speaking 
merely  to  the  name  “  Jehovah  ”  but  even  to  God 
Himself,  outside  prayer  or  worship.  They  referred 
to  Him  by  phrases  such  as  “  The  Holy  One,”  “  The 
Blessed,”  “  The  Highest,”  or  else  substituted  evasive 
terms  such  as  “  Heaven,”  “  The  Glory  ”  or  “  The 
Word.”  This  habit,  due  to  a  mistaken  reverence  and 
a  sense  of  the  aloofness  of  God,  is  rarely,  if  ever, 
followed  by  Jesus 8 ;  the  term  “  Kingdom  of  Heaven,” 
found  only  in  Matthew,  is  a  very  doubtful  exception. 

He  is  not  afraid  to  speak  of  God  directly.  Dalman 
remarks  that  “  all  three  Synoptists  record  the  use  by 
Jesus  of  4  God ,’  ”  and  finds  this  “  surprising.”  *  He 
questions  whether  “  they  reproduce  the  original  form 
of  what  was  said  by  Jesus.” 4  The  doubt  is  quite 


1  It  is  found  in  John  xvii.  n,  "Holy  Father.” 

*  For  a  possible  exception  in  the  reply  to  the  High  Priest  (Mark 
xiv.  62)  see  below,  p.  291  ;  cf.  also  Luke  vi.  35.  It  is  not  necessary  to 
consider  whether  the  exceptions  noted  here  and  on  the  preceding  page 
represent  the  actual  words  of  Jesus.  Even  if  they  are  all  original,  they 
do  not  upset  the  principle  of  his  normal  use  of  the  term  "Father." 
This  is  found  4  times  in  Mark,  45  times  in  Matthew,  and  17  times  ia 
Luke. 

*  Words  of  Jesus,  p.  194.  4  P.  19b. 


233 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


needless.  It  is  entirely  in  accordance  with  the  spirit 
of  Jesus  that  he  finds  no  difficulty  in  speaking  quite 
directly  and  simply  of  God  and  encourages  his  followers 
to  do  the  same.  To  him  God  is  not  a  dangerous, 
distant,  unaccountable  Being,  to  whom  it  is  only  safe 
or  reverent  to  refer  with  great  reserve  and  by  way 
of  allusion.  He  is  just  our  God,  our  Father,  and 
Paul  rightly  feels  that  in  the  fearless  intimacy  of  the 
prayer  “Abba,  Father  ”  he  is  expressing  the  spirit  of 
Jesus. 

Here,  we  may  justly  claim,  is  real  originality.  Christ 
does  not  merely  shift  the  emphasis,  making  the  idea 
of  fatherhood  more  prominent  than  it  was  before. 
By  his  concentration  on  this  one  term  he  showed  that 
he  had  a  new  conception  of  God.  And  just  because 
there  can  be  nothing  which  is  more  far-reaching  in 
its  influence  on  the  life  and  thought  of  mankind  than 
a  true  idea  of  what  God  is  like,  we  are  abundantly 
justified  in  finding  in  this  new  conception  the  heart  of 
his  revelation.  Much  else  there  is,  but  it  all  follows  in 
the  end  from  this  postulate. 

The  ideas  suggested  by  the  term  father  may  and 
do  differ.  In  some  stages  of  society  this  term  brings 
to  the  mind  the  patria  potestas ,  an  absolute  and  undis¬ 
puted  authority  which  controls  the  action  and  the 
very  life  of  the  child  in  small  things  as  well  as  in  great, 
which  may  mean  the  giving  of  a  daughter  in  marriage 
to  one  she  has  never  seen,  or  an  arbitrary  right  of 
corporal  punishment,  even  of  death,  which  no  one  may 
challenge.  But  it  is  obvious  that  this  legalistic  con¬ 
ception  of  fatherhood  was  not  in  our  Lord’s  mind. 
His  use  of  the  idea  carries  with  it  reverent  love  and 
joyful  obedience  on  the  side  of  man,  and  on  the  side  of 

234 


THE  TEACHING  OF  CHRIST 


God  His  unwearied  affection  for  the  erring  son,  His 
watchful  protection  and  His  unstinted  giving  of  the 
best.  It  means  not  the  degradation  or  the  parody  of 
fatherhood  but  its  ideal.  God’s  is  the  perfect  Father¬ 
hood  from  which  all  earthly  fatherhood  is  derived.1 

Christ,  then,  brought  to  the  world  for  the  first  time  Had  Christ 
in  its  clearness  the  good  news  of  the  Fatherhood  of  fdeao^God? 
God.  The  question  before  us  is  whether  with  this  he 
combined  other  conceptions  of  God.  Did  he  some-^5^ 
times  present  Him  as  the  omnipotent  King  who 
punishes  and  avenges,  who  in  the  last  resort  falls 
back  from  the  attractive  compulsion  of  love  to  the  v 
threatening  force  of  a  destructive  judgment  ?  Those 
who  see  no  inconsistency  between  the  two  sides  will 
answer  without  hesitation  ;  the  Gospels,  they  urge, . 
no  less  than  the  Apocalypse,  point  to  the  wrath  of  the 
Lamb.  But  those  who  feel  that  the  attempt  to  com¬ 
bine  the  two  is  “  to  walk  with  unequal  legs,”  must, 
as  already  pointed  out,  choose  between  two  alter¬ 
natives.  Either  Jesus  was  not  clear-sighted  enough 
to  see  the  contradiction,  but  retained  the  inherited  and 
contemporary  ideas  side  by  side  with  his  own  new 
vision  ;  or  the  apparent  contradiction  does  not  belong 
to  the  original  teaching,  but  is  an  accretion  which 
has  crept  in  during  some  of  those  various  stages  through 
which  Christ’s  words  passed  before  they  reached  their 
present  form.  In  the  chapters  which  follow  we  shall 
consider  which  of  these  alternatives  is  the  more 
probable  from  the  point  of  view  of  a  critical  study 
of  the  Gospels. 

1  See  Eph.  iii.  15,  “The  Father  from  whom  every  family  in  earth 
and  heaven  is  named. ”  The  word  for  family  is  irarpia,  derived  from 
ira.T'fjp  (father). 


23s 


CHAPTER  XIX 


Is  God 
angry  ? 


ANGER  AND  PUNISHMENT 

A  distinction  has  been  drawn  in  earlier  chapters 
between  consequence  and  punishment,  the  former 
denoting  the  working  out  of  a  law  of  retribution 
which,  as  part  of  the  scheme  of  a  moral  universe, 
represents  the  general  purpose  of  God,  while  the  latter 
suggests  a  definite  penalty  inflicted  on  the  individual 
ad  hoc  by  a  personal  agent  who  wills  this  particular 
thing.  In  considering  the  teaching  of  the  Gospels 
it  will  be  important  to  bear  this  distinction  in  mind. 

We  may  first  note  a  very  significant  feature  which 
affects  the  New  Testament  as  a  whole.  God  loves, 
but  we  are  never  told  in  the  New  Testament  that  He 
is  angry.  We  read  indeed  of  the  wrath  of  God  (or 
of  the  Lamb,  Rev.  vi.  16),  but  this  phrase,  or  more  often 
the  wrath  alone,  is  used  in  a  curious  impersonal  way 
which  suggests  “  a  process  directed  or  controlled  by  a 
person  55  rather  than  an  emotion  in  the  mind  of  that 
person.1  It  is  the  law  of  consequence,  not  the  personal 
anger  of  God.  We  may  instance  the  passage  in 
Rom.  i.  1 8  ff.,  where  “  the  wrath  of  God  ”  is  revealed 
in  the  consequences  of  sin  to  which  God  leaves  the 
sinner.  It  is  this  principle  of  deterioration  and  moral 

1  See  on  this  whole  question  the  admirable  treatment  by  C.  H. 
Dodd  in  The  Meaning  of  Paul  for  To-day,  p.  62. 

236 


ANGER  AND  PUNISHMENT 


blindness  which  constitutes  the  real  horror  of  sin.1 
While,  then,  the  Old  Testament  has  no  hesitation  in 
speaking  quite  simply  of  God  as  being  angry  or  wroth, 
the  follower  of  Christ  feels  instinctively  that  he  must 
avoid  the  expression. 

To  turn  to  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  the  impression  Parables 
that  Jesus  taught  the  wrath  of  God  and  His  personal  allegories, 
action  in  punishment  is  chiefly  derived  from  the 
parables.  It  has  already  been  suggested 2  that  the 
“  King  ”  or  “  Master  ”  in  many  of  them  is  not  to  be 
understood  as  referring  to  God  personally  and  directly, 
but  is,  as  we  should  say  now,  a  kind  of  personification 
of  consequence.  The  parable  is  an  illustrative  story, 
not  an  allegory  where  the  figures  and  incidents  corre¬ 
spond  exactly  to  something  else.  As  these  things 
happen  in  the  earthly  story,  so  do  things  happen  in 
the  realm  of  the  spirit ;  but  it  does  not  follow  that 
what  is  done  as  a  direct  personal  action  by  the  potentate 
in  the  parable  is  to  be  thought  of  as  done  in  exactly 
the  same  way  by  God  Himself.  In  view  of  the  fact 
that  anger  and  punishment  are  not  attributed  to  God 
in  the  ordinary  teaching  of  Christ,  we  are  justified  in 
refusing  such  an  interpretation  of  the  parables  unless  it 
is  forced  upon  us.  On  the  other  hand,  Christ  did  wish 
to  emphasize  beyond  the  possibility  of  mistake  the 
unrelenting  law  of  consequence  and  retribution ; 
it  was  necessary  that  it  should  be  presented  vividly 
and  dramatically,  and  it  may  well  be  that  one  of  the 
reasons  for  his  choice  of  the  parabolic  method  was 

1  Cf.  2  Thess.  ii.  n,  12.  In  the  same  way  in  the  Septuagint  God 
is  never  the  object  of  the  verb  “  to  appease,”  as  He  is  in  Pagan  writers ; 
there  is  an  instinctive  feeling  that  in  the  last  resort  He  does  not  need 
to  be  appeased. 

2  See  p.  172. 


237 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


The  danger 
of  pointing 
the  moral. 


Matthew’s 

additions. 


that  it  enabled  him  to  teach  the  working  of  conse¬ 
quence  in  this  vivid  way  without  attributing  it  to  the 
personal  action  of  the  Father. 

In  examining  the  parables  it  is  also  important  to 
distinguish  between  the  core  of  the  parable  and  the 
explanations  or  comments  which  seem  often  to  have 
been  added  in  tradition  or  by  the  evangelists  them¬ 
selves.  Such  comments  are  particularly  common  in 
the  First  Gospel,1  and  they  nearly  always  have  the 
object  of  emphasizing  the  aspect  of  punishment. 
The  preacher  or  catechist  in  repeating  the  parable 
would  always  want  to  bring  out  the  moral,  and  the 
moral  might  not  always  be  precisely  that  intended 
by  Christ.  And  this  additional  comment,  when  often 
repeated,  would  easily  come  to  be  attached  to  the 
parable  itself  as  though  it  were  part  of  the  original. 

The  double  phrase  about  “  outer  darkness  ”  and 
“  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth  ”  occurs  as  such  a 
comment  in  Matthew’s  versions  of  the  Wedding 
Feast  and  the  Talents  (Matt.  xxii.  13  ;  xxv.  30)  ;  it  is 
absent  from  the  corresponding  Lucan  parables  of  the 
Great  Supper  and  the  Pounds.  The  second  half  of 
the  phrase  also  occurs  at  the  close  of  Matthew’s  parables 
of  the  Tares  (xiii.  42,  in  the  explanation),  the  Net 
(xiii.  50)  and  the  Faithful  and  Unfaithful  Servants 
(xxiv.  51). 

The  whole  phrase  is  found  in  the  prediction  of  the 
exclusion  of  the  sons  of  the  Kingdom  ( i.e .  the  Jews), 
which  follows  the  healing  of  the  Centurion’s  Servant 
(Matt.  viii.  12).  Luke  has  the  latter  part — the  only 

1  This  Gospel  was  written  for  Jewish  Christians,  and  we  are  not 
surprised  to  find  the  influence  of  Jewish  apocalyptic  far  stronger  here 
than  in  the  other  Gospels.  The  following  pages  will  supply  many 
examples. 


238 


ANGER  AND  PUNISHMENT 


occurrence  of  the  phrase  in  his  Gospel — in  a  different 
context  (xiii.  28) :  “  There  shall  be  the  weeping  and 
gnashing  of  teeth  when  ye  shall  see  Abraham  and 
Isaac  and  Jacob  and  all  the  prophets  in  the  kingdom  of 
God,  and  yourselves  cast  forth  without.”  Here  the 
application  is  different ;  it  denotes  regret  for  lost 
opportunity,  with  no  reference  to  future  or  eternal 
punishment. 

Particularly  instructive  is  the  comparison  of  the 
two  pairs  of  parables:  ( a )  the  Wedding  Feast  and  the 
Great  Supper  ;  ( b )  the  Talents  and  the  Pounds.  Both 
of  these  occur  in  different  versions  in  Matthew  and 
Luke.1 

{a)  The  Lucan  parable  (xiv.  15)  is  a  straightforward 
story  of  the  refusal  of  an  invitation  by  those  originally 
invited  and  its  acceptance  by  others,  ending  with  the 
comment,  “  None  of  those  men  which  were  bidden 
shall  taste  of  my  supper.” 

Matthew’s  version  (xxii.  1)  adds  the  ill-treatment 
and  killing  of  the  servants,  with  the  result  that  the 
king  sends  his  armies  and  burns  their  city  (the  reference 
is  clearly  to  the  national  disaster  of  the  fall  of  Jeru¬ 
salem)  ;  it  also  includes  the  episode  of  the  man  without 
the  wedding  garment.  Archdeacon  Allen  2  holds  that 
this  is  the  conclusion  of  another  parable,  in  which  a 
rejected  guest  is  dismissed  the  palace.  We  have 
already  noted  the  other  addition  of  the  comment 
about  outer  darkness  and  gnashing  of  teeth.  In 
Matt.  xxii.  14  there  is  the  final  moral,  quite  un¬ 
suitable  to  the  latter  part  dealing  with  the  wedding 

1  It  will  make  no  difference  to  our  argument  whether  it  be  held  that 
both  versions  are  derived  from  Q,  or  that  Matthew  and  Luke  have 
drawn  them  from  different  sources. 

*  International  Critical  Commentary,  ad  loc. 

239 


The  parable 
of  the  Great 
Feast. 


The 

Talents. 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 

garment :  “  Many  are  called,  but  few  chosen.”  It  does 
not  appear  that  this  suits  the  original  parable  either, 
since  those  finally  admitted  would  seem  to  be  as 
many  as  those  who  rejected  the  invitation.  In  any 
case  there  would  seem  to  be  at  least  three  features 
in  Matthew’s  version  which  do  not  belong  to  the 
original.1 

( b )  We  have  also  already  noted  the  addition  of  the 
conventional  comment  in  Matt.  xxv.  30  at  the  close 
of  the  parable  of  the  Talents.  But  in  this  case  it  is 
Luke  who  makes  the  chief  modifications  (xix.  11  ff.). 
He  adds  the  features  of  the  nobleman  going  into  a  far 
country  to  receive  a  kingdom,  the  counter-embassy 
of  his  subjects,  and  the  command  on  the  part  of  the 
new-made  king  to  slay  his  opponents  before  his  face 
(xix.  27).  This  last  verse  comes  in  as  a  complete 
surprise  after  the  apparent  close  of  the  parable 2  ; 
if  it  and  verse  14  be  omitted  we  have  a  quite  straight¬ 
forward  parable,  running  parallel  to  that  found  in 
Matthew.  The  additions  seem  intended  to  bring  out 
the  parallel  between  Archelaus  who  went  to  Rome  to 
receive  a  kingdom  and  Christ  who  ascended  to  his 
Father  in  heaven,  the  continued  refusal  of  the  Jews 
to  accept  him  as  King,  and  their  imminent  destruction 
at  the  second  coming.  We  can  indeed  almost  hear 
the  catechist  making  up  the  naive  story  implied  in 
this  subsidiary  parable,  drawing  on  his  knowledge  of 
what  happened  in  the  case  of  one  of  the  Herods,  and 

1  Dr  Stanton,  speaking  of  this  parable,  says  :  “  I  do  not  think  it  can 
be  denied  that  it  is  easier  to  suppose  that  the  special  features  in  St 
Matthew  were  added  to  the  original  form,  than  that  the  original  form 
contained  them  and  was  stripped  of  them,  so  as  to  give  the  form  we 
find  in  St  Luke  "  ( The  Gospels  as  Historical  Documents,  ii.  p.  340). 

2  Montefiore  ( The  Synoptic  Gospels,  ad  loc.)  and  others  regard  this 
verse  as  an  addition. 


240 


ANGER  AND  PUNISHMENT 


pointing  the  moral  of  what,  in  his  view,  Christ  would 
do  on  his  return. 

At  any  rate,  when  we  examine  these  two  pairs  of 
parables,  we  can  see  how  a  simple  original  has  been 
modified  and  complicated,  and  we  note  the  significance 
of  the  fact  that  the  additions  all  have  the  object  of 
emphasizing  the  idea  of  punishment.  It  is  clear 
that  the  destruction  of  enemies  was  an  obsession  to 
that  generation,  and  that  additions  suggesting  this 
were  made  to  parables  which  had  originally  no  such 
reference. 

In  the  parable  of  the  Tares  (Matt.  xiii.  24-30,  36-43)  The  Tares, 
the  whole  explanation  is  probably  a  later  addition. 

It  is  separated  from  the  parable  itself  by  several  verses, 
and  is  represented  as  given  in  private  to  the  disciples. 

This  may  be  taken  to  imply  that  the  explanation  was 
not  known  in  the  earliest  tradition  and  suggests  why 
it  had  hitherto  remained  unknown.  It  is  full  of 
“  the  crude  and  fierce  imagery  of  Jewish  Apocalyptic 
thought,”  and  “  can  hardly  have  emanated  from 
Jesus.”  1  it  turns  the  parable  into  an  allegory, 
attempting  to  find  the  exact  equivalent  to  every 
feature,  in  a  way  which  seems  quite  alien  to  the 
general  method  of  Christ.  The  original  warned  the 
hearers  that  as  some  would  not  receive  the  message 
at  all  (see  the  preceding  parable  of  the  Sower),  so  even 
those  who  received  it  would  include  good  and  bad. 

The  disciples  must  rest  content  with  this  situation  till 
the  end,  which  is  briefly  described  in  imagery  proper 
to  the  setting  of  the  story ;  the  later  explanation 

1  Winstanley,  Jesus  and  the  Future,  p.  150.  Note  also  that  the 
explanatory  section  represents  Jesus  as  speaking  of  himself  as  Son  of 
man  in  a  clearly  Messianic  sense,  which  he  certainly  did  not  do  at  this 
early  stage  of  his  ministry,  if  indeed  at  all.  See  below,  p.  279. 

24I 


Q 


The  Unjust 
Judge. 


I.  Sayings 
common 
to  Mark 
and  Q. 

The  sin 
against 
the  Holy 
Ghost. 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 

expands  this  into  the  terms  of  a  definite  apocalyptic 
scheme. 

In  the  parable  of  the  Unjust  Judge  (Luke  xviii.  1-8) 
we  have  a  case  where  it  is  clearly  impossible  to  say 
that  the  central  figure  (“  an  unjust  judge  who  fears  not 
God  nor  regards  man  ”)  is  God  Himself.  The  teaching 
is  the  need  of  perseverance  in  prayer,  as  in  the  parable 
of  the  Friend  at  midnight.  The  application  that  God 
will  “  avenge  his  elect  who  cry  to  him  day  and  night  ” 
seems  to  reflect  the  questionings  which  arose  in  the 
Church  owing  to  the  delay  in  the  Coming,  and  is 
probably  not  original.  It  encourages  patience  on 
the  ground  that  God  will  soon  punish  the  persecutors 
of  the  faithful.  As  has  been  shown,  this  is  a  frequent 
feature  of  the  apocalyptic  literature.  In  the  New 
Testament  it  occurs  in  2  Thess.  i.  4  ffi.,  and  constantly 
in  the  book  of  Revelation.  See  especially  Rev.  vi.  9, 
where  the  souls  of  those  who  had  been  slain  for  the 
word  of  God  and  for  the  testimony  which  they  held, 
cry  from  beneath  the  altar,  “  How  long,  O  Master, 
the  holy  and  true,  dost  thou  not  judge  and  avenge 
our  blood  on  them  that  dwell  on  the  earth  ?  ”  But 
it  is  not  easy  to  read  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and 
believe  that  Jesus  encouraged  this  temper  of  mind. 

Passing  from  the  parables,  we  may  consider  certain 
other  outstanding  Gospel  passages  often  taken  as 
confirming  the  doctrine  of  punishment. 

The  passages  about  the  unforgivable  sin  have  always 
been  a  difficulty  to  preacher  and  reader  alike,  just  on 
the  ground  that  they  cannot  be  understood  in  a  way 
which  is  consistent  with  the  general  tenor  of  Christ’s 
teaching.  The  versions  of  the  whole  saying  (Mark 
iii.  28;  Matt.  xii.  31  ;  Luke  xii.  10)  vary  considerably 

242 


ANGER  AND  PUNISHMENT 


and  the  question  of  their  relation  is  complicated  ;  it 
seems  to  have  been  recorded  in  different  forms  in 
Mark  and  Q.  It  is  probable  that  Luke  follows  Q 
rather  than  Mark,  and  that  Matthew,  as  usual,  com¬ 
bines  both.  W.  C.  Allen,  Harnack  and  Streeter,  all 
arguing  on  purely  literary  grounds  and  with  no  desire 
to  eliminate  or  tone  down  references  to  punishment, 
agree  that  the  Lucan  form  of  the  saying  is  nearest  the 
original,  and  this  is  simply  “  shall  not  be  forgiven 
him,”  with  no  reference  to  eternal  punishment  such 
as  is  found  in  the  other  versions.  Christ  is  speaking 
of  the  heart  which  refuses  to  recognize  the  good  when 
presented  to  it,  and  so  cannot  open  itself  to  the  divine 
forgiveness.  It  is  a  solemn  statement  of  inevitable 
consequence,  which  must  follow  on  certain  states  of 
mind  so  long  as  they  remain,  not  a  statement  that 
certain  sins  are  excluded  from  the  range  of  the  divine 
forgiveness. 

“  If  thy  hand  or  foot  offend  thee,  etc.”  (Mark 
ix.  43  ;  Matt,  xviii.  8  ;  Matt.  v.  29  [Q] ).  This  is  clearly 
consequence  ;  what  a  man  makes  of  himself  persists, 
even  when  he  enters  “  into  life  ”  ;  there  is  no  question 
of  God  cutting  off  his  hand  or  foot  as  a  punishment. 

“  Offending  ”  the  little  ones  (Mark  ix.  42 ;  Matt, 
xviii.  6;  Luke  xvii.  1) ;  cf.  the  saying  to  Judas  (Mark 
xiv.  21).  Offences  must  come,  but  the  personal 
responsibility  of  those  who  bring  them  remains.  The 
result  is  a  deterioration  of  their  character,  so  terrible 
that  death  were  a  better  fate. 

Throughout  Q  there  is  a  constant  stress  on  conse¬ 
quence  with  a  marked  absence  of  any  idea  that  God 
Himself  punishes.  “  With  what  judgment  ye  judge  ” 
(Matt.  vii.  2),  “  the  broad  way  leading  to  destruction  ” 

243 


2.  Passages 
probably 
derived 
from  Q. 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


*'  Fear 
him.” 


(vii.  13),  the  good  and  bad  tree  (vii.  16;  xii.  33; 
Luke  vi.  43),  the  houses  built  on  the  rock  and  the 
sand  (Matt.  vii.  24),  “  the  blind  leading  the  blind  ” 
(xv.  14) — these  all  express  in  one  way  or  another  the 
warning  given  to  a  world  where  effect  follows  cause. 

Matthew’s  treatment  of  the  good  and  bad  tree  in 
vii.  16  is  instructive.  He  adds,  as  so  often,  an  editorial 
comment,  derived  in  this  case  from  the  teaching  of 
the  Baptist  (see  Matt.  iii.  10),  “ Every  tree  that  bringeth 
not  forth  good  fruit  is  hewn  down  and  cast  into  the 
fire,”  thus  bringing  out  the  ideas  of  punishment  and 
destruction  rather  than  of  simple  consequence. 

“  More  tolerable  for  Sodom  and  Gomorrha,  etc.” 
(Matt.  x.  15;  Luke  x.  12).  Here  Christ  seems  to  be 
speaking  of  the  result  of  national  folly  on  a  nation, 
not  of  an  external  sentence  which  is  to  be  passed  by  a 
judge  on  a  city  for  something  it  has  done  long  ago. 

“  Fear  him  who  is  able  to  destroy  both  soul  and  body 
in  hell  ”  (Matt.  x.  28)  ;  or  “  Fear  him  who  after  he 
hath  killed  hath  power  to  cast  into  hell  ”  (Luke  xii.  5). 
On  the  view  taken  by  most  commentators  that  the 
object  of  the  fear  is  God,  this  is  the  one  passage  from  Q 
which  speaks  of  Him  as  destroying  and  punishing  by 
His  own  personal  action.  But  in  view  of  the  general 
trend  of  Christ’s  teaching  it  is  far  more  probable 
that  the  reference  is  to  the  devil  or  the  power  of  evil, 
which  does  ultimately  destroy  body  and  soul.  In 
the  following  verses  Jesus  describes  the  Father  as 
essentially  the  Saviour,  the  protector  even  of  the 
sparrows.1 

“  The  house  swept  and  garnished  ”  (Matt.  xii.  43 ; 
Luke  xi.  24).  Here  is  a  clear  statement  of  the  conse- 

1  See  above,  p.  173.  Cf.  Heb.  ii.  14 ;  the  Devil  has  the  power  of  death. 

244 


ANGER  AND  PUNISHMENT 


quence  not  merely  of  sin,  but  of  a  state  of  mind  which 
contents  itself  with  a  passive  and  negative  attitude 
towards  life  ;  the  heart  of  such  a  one  is  in  the  end 
invaded  by  “  seven  other  spirits  worse  than  the  first,” 
and  this  is  its  punishment.  But  obviously  God  is  not 
thought  of  as  sending  the  spirits  as  a  direct  judgment. 

The  Woes  on  the  Pharisees  (Matt,  xxiii. ;  Luke  Warnings  of 
•  \  ••  •  r*  national 

xi.  42).  inis  is  a  warning  01  inevitable  consequence  destruction, 
coming  upon  certain  classes  as  the  result  of  their 
attitude  towards  life  ;  the  “  woe  ”  is  a  statement,  not 
a  curse  or  a  prayer  for  vengeance.  This  is  especially 
clear  in  Luke ;  Matthew,  as  we  should  expect,  is 
fuller  ;  his  most  significant  addition  is  verse  33,  “  Ye 
serpents,  ye  offspring  of  vipers,  how  shall  ye  escape  the 
judgment  of  hell  ?  ”  This  is  practically  taken  over 
from  the  teaching  of  the  Baptist ;  see  Matt.  iii.  7  ; 
and,  if  we  are  right  in  contrasting  the  teaching  of  the 
Baptist  and  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  it  is  not  in  place  here. 

The  final  issue  is  the  national  disaster  when  the  blood 
of  the  martyrs  from  Abel  to  Zechariah  “  shall  come 
upon  this  generation  ” — so  Matthew.  Luke  twice  has 
the  more  personal  “  shall  be  required  of  this  genera¬ 
tion  ”  ;  Harnack  prefers  the  Matthean  phrase  as  more 
Semitic.1 

“  As  it  was  in  the  days  of  Noah,  etc.”  (Matt.  xxiv. 

37-41  ;  Luke  xvii.  26-37).  Though  this  occurs  in 
“  the  Little  Apocalypse  ”  (see  p.  288),  it  probably  comes 
from  Q.  We  should  note  the  marked  reticence  of  the 
passage  in  contrast  with  similar  pictures  from  the 
apocalyptic  books.  God  is  not  represented  as  the 
agent  of  punishment  or  as  avenging  The  doom  is 


1  Spruche  und  Reden  Jesu,  p.  73  (Eng.  tr.,  The  Sayings  of  Jesus , 
p.  103). 

215 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


3.  Marcan 
passages. 


the  inevitable  result  of  previous  folly  and  unprepared¬ 
ness.  This  also  holds  good  of  the  lament  over  Jerusa¬ 
lem  (Matt,  xxiii.  37  ;  Luke  xiii.  34),  and  the  prediction 
of  its  fall  (Luke  xix.  41)  ;  it  is  most  significant  that  none 
of  these  passages  say  that  God  will  destroy  it.  In 
view  of  the  fact  that  this  would  be  the  natural  way  of 
putting  it  at  the  time,  we  have  a  right  to  argue  with 
some  confidence  that  Christ  deliberately  avoided  it. 

Most  of  these  have  already  been  discussed  under 
previous  heads ;  only  two  remain. 

The  purpose  of  parables  (Mark  iv.  12  and  parallels). 
Christ  says  that  he  speaks  in  parables  “  that  seeing  they 
may  see  and  not  perceive,  etc.5’  The  explanation  is 
recognized  as  a  real  difficulty,  and  many  critics  hold 
that  the  words  cannot,  as  they  stand,  have  been  spoken 
by  Jesus.  In  any  case,  it  will  be  agreed  that  he 
cannot  have  desired  the  increasing  blindness  of  the 
Jews ;  his  attitude  is,  “  How  often  would  I  have 
gathered  thy  children.55  The  meaning  of  the  saying, 
whether  authentic  or  not,  must  be  that  blindness  is  the 
necessary  consequence  of  sin,  not  that  Christ  wished 
to  bring  it  about.  The  distinction  between  purpose 
and  result  (“  in  order  that 55  as  opposed  to  “  so  that 5?) 
was  not  very  clearly  marked  in  Hebrew  or  Aramaic, 
and  in  the  later  Greek  represented  in  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  the  particle  "iva  was  used  in  a  more  general  way 
to  express  result  and  not  purpose.1  Hence  Matthew’s 
version  (“  because  [ort]  seeing  they  see  not  ”)  probably 
gives  the  right  meaning. 

The  cursing  of  the  fig  tree  (Mark  xi.  13,  20  ff. ;  Matt, 
xxi.  19  ;  not  in  Luke).  This  again  has  always  pre- 

1  See  Moulton,  Grammar  of  New  Testament  Greek ,  p.  206. 

246 


ANGER  AND  PUNISHMENT 


sented  a  difficulty,  not  only  from  the  strangeness  of 
the  miracle  but  from  its  apparent  inconsistency  with 
Christ’s  character.  There  are  two  possible  explana¬ 
tions  :  ( a )  that  the  story  is  a  mistaken  dramatization 
of  the  parable  of  Luke  xiii.  6 ;  ( b )  that  when  Christ 
failed  to  find  the  figs  he  expected,  he  saw  the  signs  of 
death  in  the  tree  and  made  a  statement  that  no  one 
would  eat  of  it  again.  This  was  changed  into  a 
££  curse,”  as  Peter  calls  it  (Mark  xi.  21),  ££No  one  eat 
of  thee.”  In  either  case  the  lesson  is  the  same  as  that 
of  the  Lucan  parable — the  inevitableness  of  national 
doom  where  there  are  no  fruits  of  righteousness. 

The  fact  that  the  incident  as  related  in  Mark  con¬ 
nects  very  badly  with  the  subsequent  sayings  about 
the  power  of  faith  and  of  prayer  suggests  that  the 
tradition  has  somehow  become  confused. 

The  teaching  of  the  New  Testament  on  the  subject  Hell, 
of  hell  has  already  been  dealt  with  by  the  present 
writer  at  some  length  in  the  article  ££  The  Bible  and 
Hell,”  published  in  the  volume  of  Essays,  Immortality , 
edited  by  Canon  Streeter.  I  have  there  tried  to  show 
that  in  the  New  Testament  in  general  there  is  far  less 
about  future  punishment  than  is  usually  supposed. 

The  stress  on  it  is  practically  confined  to  a  single 
group  of  books,  Matthew,  2  Thessalonians,  2  Peter, 
Jude  and  Revelation.  At  first  sight  these  books  may 
not  seem  to  have  much  in  common,  but  they  are 
connected  by  the  fact  that  in  them  the  influence  of 
apocalyptic  ideas  is  specially  marked ;  they  may 
therefore  be  regarded  from  this  point  of  view  as  ££  a 
group.”  All  of  them  derive  their  language  about 
punishment  after  death  from  a  common  source, 
extraneous  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  For  it  is  from 

247 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


the  earlier  Jewish  apocalyptic  books  that  the  idea  of 
future  punishment  really  comes.  It  is  there  con¬ 
nected  quite  unmistakably  with  the  very  human  desire 
for  vengeance  on  the  enemies  of  the  nation,  regarded 
as  identical  with  the  enemies  of  God,  or  on  classes 
within  the  nation,  whether  heretics  or  apostates,  to 
which  the  writer  is  hostile.  It  also  appears  that  even 
the  passages  in  which  future  punishment  is  stressed, 
whether  in  the  apocalyptic  books  or  in  the  New 
Testament,  do  not  really  imply  that  it  is  everlasting; 
as  a  rule,  the  language  used  suggests  annihilation  or 
else  punishment  till  the  end  of  an  “  age.” 

We  are  here,  however,  concerned  only  with  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  himself  as  recorded  in  the  Gospels. 
The  belief  that  he  taught  an  everlasting  hell  is  almost 
entirely  derived  from  the  First  Gospel,  the  Jewish 
Gospel ;  this,  as  we  have  seen,  frequently  introduces 
apocalyptic  ideas  which  are  absent  from  the  parallel 
passages  in  the  other  Gospels,  and  also  emphasizes 
the  belief  in  punishment  and  an  external  judgment. 
The  outstanding  example  is  the  Matthean  parable  of 
the  Sheep  and  Goats  (Matt.  xxv.  31  ff.),  which  we 
shall  have  to  consider  further  in  another  connection.1 
We  are  here  concerned  primarily  with  the  words, 
“  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,  into  the  eternal 2  fire 
which  is  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels  ” 
(verse  41  ;  cf.  verse  46).  This  idea  is,  of  course,  a 
commonplace  of  apocalyptic,  and  indeed  throughout 
the  whole  section  apocalyptic  influence  is  at  its  height. 
Almost  every  phrase  may  be  paralleled  from  the  earlier 

1  See  p.  291. 

8  The  word  is  “aeonian,”  which  means  “lasting  till  the  end  of  an 
age”  (or  ceon)\  it  does  not  mean  “everlasting”  in  the  sense  of 
unending. 


248 


ANGER  AND  PUNISHMENT 


literature.1  The  features  which  are  peculiar  and  orig¬ 
inal  are  :  (i)  the  stress  on  sins  of  omission  ;  (2)  Christ’s 
identification  of  himself  with  his  “  little  ones,”  which 
is  also  found  in  Mark  ix.  37.  If,  then,  we  suppose  an 
original  parable  of  Jesus  developing  these  features,  the 
marked  apocalyptic  additions  may  well  be  due  here,  as 
elsewhere,  to  tradition  or  to  the  Evangelist.2 

To  sum  up:  Jesus  emphasizes  again  and  again  the  Summary  of 
truth  that  man  has  his  lot  in  a  moral  universe,  the  the  ciiaPter- 
laws  of  which  cannot  be  evaded ;  what  a  man  soweth, 
that  shall  he  also  reap.  But  he  markedly  avoids  the 
language  of  contemporary  Judaism  which  represents 
God  as  taking  a  fierce  vengeance  on  evil-doers,  whether 
here  or  hereafter.  A  very  few  phrases  are  attributed 
to  him  which  might  suggest  that  he  occasionally  shared 
this  attitude,  but  they  can  all  be  readily  explained  as 
later  glosses,  added  in  oral  tradition  or  by  the  Evan¬ 
gelists.  Here,  as  elsewhere,  his  conception  of  God  is 
harmonious  and  self-consistent. 


1  See  Immortality,  p.  196  ff. 

2  It  is  worth  noting  that  popular  taste  has  not  shrunk  from  using 
the  idea  of  a  division  into  sheep  and  goats  in  all  kinds  of  humorous 
connections;  but  no  reverent  person  would  make  a  jest  out  of  the 
words,  "  Inasmuch  as  ye  have  done  it  unto  the  least  of  these  my 
brethren.”  This  instinctive  difference  of  treatment  would  seem  to 
indicate  real  insight.  Criticism  and  the  religious  intuitions  of  the 
ordinary  man  agree  more  often  than  is  sometimes  supposed. 


249 


CHAPTER  XX 


TEACHING  ABOUT  FORGIVENESS 

Both  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  in  the  Lucan 

parables,  such  as  the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican,  the 

Lost  Sheep,  the  Coin  and  the  Prodigal  Son,  the  divine 

forgiveness  is  represented  as  always  ready ;  God  loves 

the  evil-doer  all  the  time  and  is  actively  seeking  for 

him.  There  is  no  question  about  His  attitude,  and  this 

Forgiveness  attitude,  with  its  absence  of  resentment  and  anger 
and  recon-  .....  .  . 

ciliation.  and  with  its  active  purpose  to  resume  the  relations 

which  have  been  broken  by  the  offender,  is  what  we 

have  defined  as  forgiveness  The  second  stage  is  the 

resumption  of  these  relations,  or,  in  the  case  of  God  and 

man,  the  inauguration  for  the  first  time  of  that  loving 

intimacy  which  has  always  been  the  purpose  of  God 

but  has  often  never  been  actualized  in  the  experience 

of  the  individual.  This  stage  depends  on  man’s 

response.  But  God’s  forgiveness  in  the  deepest  sense 

is  there  all  the  time.  God  takes  the  initiative,  and 

this  initiative  does  not  denote  a  change  of  mind  or 

attitude  on  His  part,  as  though  He  passed  from  a 

prior  stage  of  anger  to  one  where  He  became  ready  to 

forgive. 

There  are  one  or  two  features  in  the  Gospel  teaching 
which  require  some  discussion  from  this  point  of  view. 

I.  We  find  prayers  for  forgiveness,  e.g.  in  the 

250 


TEACHING  ABOUT  FORGIVENESS 


Lord’s  Prayer.  Does  this  imply  that  God  does  not  Why  pray 
forgive  till  He  is  asked  ?  Once,  in  the  parable  of  the  ness*?1^0 
Publican  (Luke  xviii.  9),  we  find  the  cry  “  be  merciful.” 

Does  this  mean  that  there  is  a  stage  where  God  is  not 
merciful,  or  needs  propitiation  ?  The  answer  will 
certainly  be  “  No  ”  ;  and  yet,  quite  apart  from  any 
question  of  the  frequency  of  such  language  in  our 
Lord’s  teaching,  the  cry  for  forgiveness  in  whatever 
phraseology  is  clearly  a  deep-seated  religious  instinct. 

But  if  Christ’s  conception  of  God  be  true,  must  not 
this  mean  in  the  last  resort  “  make  me  forgivable  ”  ; 

“  teach  me  to  open  my  heart  that  Thy  forgiveness 
may  find  its  way  in”  ?  This  would  seem  to  be  suggested 
by  the  prayer,  “  Father,  forgive  them,  for  they  know  not 
what  they  do.”  It  is  really  a  prayer  that  their  eyes 
may  be  opened  that  they  may  know,  that  they  may 
come  to  their  true  selves  and  return  to  their  Father. 

One  of  the  conditions  for  the  entry  of  forgiveness  is  that 
we  should  recognize  “  what  we  do,”  confess  that  we 
have  sinned.  But  such  confession  and  prayers  for 
forgiveness  do  not  imply  that  God  has  to  be  turned 
from  a  previous  state  of  anger  in  which  He  is  not 
ready  to  forgive.  Even  in  human  relationships  the 
friend  or  the  father  can  say,  “  I  forgave  you  from  the 
first,”  and  yet  it  is  natural,  for  the  sake  of  the  offender, 
that  he  should  look  for  an  acknowledgment  of  wrong 
and  a  request  to  be  forgiven.  It  may  help  us  if  we 
realize  that  after  all  this  particular  problem  is  the  same 
as  the  problem  which  arises  with  regard  to  all  prayer. 

God  knows  our  necessities  before  we  ask  ;  He  is  “  more  prayer  is  not 
ready  to  give  than  we  to  receive  ”  ;  “  His  nature  and  J^UtodinS 
property  is  always  to  have  mercy  and  to  forgive.”  It  relent 
is  generally  agreed  that  we  ask,  not  as  persuading  God 

251 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


but  because  the  asking  represents  the  spiritual  condition 
on  which  alone  the  blessing  which  He  is  eager  to  give 
can  be  appropriated  by  us.  We  can  apply  the  same 
principle  to  prayers  for  forgiveness.  And  this  will 
mean  that  we  shall  choose  our  language  accordingly. 
We  shall  prefer  phrases  implying  confession  of  sin,  or 
simple  prayers  for  forgiveness  and  for  the  deepening  of 
our  own  repentance,  rather  than  petitions  such  as 
“  spare  us,”  “  be  not  angry  with  us  for  ever,”  or  those 
reiterated  cries  for  mercy  which  in  their  origin 
undoubtedly  implied,  and  which  suggest  even  now,  an 
offended  God  who  has  to  be  persuaded  to  change 
His  mind,  or  has  intimated  that  He  is  ready  to  abandon 
His  anger  if  He  is  asked  in  the  proper  way.  We  shall 
never  forget  that  we  are  addressing,  not  an  arbitrary 
potentate,  but  the  Father  who  hastens  to  greet  us  when 
we  are  yet  a  long  way  off. 

God’s  for-  2.  Forgiveness  is  sometimes  represented  as  dependent 
giveness  ...  .  r  . 

and  our  for-  on  certain  conditions,  especially  on  our  readiness  to 
others.SS  °*  forgive  others.  This  is  central  in  the  Lord’s  Prayer, 
and  the  same  point  is  emphasized  in  Mark  xi.  25 
(“  forgive  .  .  .  that  your  Father  .  .  .  may  forgive 
you  ”)  ;  Matt.  vi.  14.  We  must  obviously  understand 
this  as  referring  to  the  second  stage  of  forgiveness — its 
acceptance  by  the  offender.  The  spirit  of  malice  and 
hatred  towards  our  fellows  closes  the  heart  as  nothing 
else,  so  that  we  cannot  be  in  that  relationship  to  God 
in  which  His  love  is  realized.  The  parable  of  the 
Unmerciful  Servant  (Matt,  xviii.  23 — peculiar  to  this 
Gospel)  teaches  the  same  general  lesson,  dramatizing 
the  inevitable  working  of  consequence.  But  it  is  one 
of  those  cases  where  the  comment  of  the  Evangelist 
and  the  desire  to  produce  a  rounded  allegorical  parallel- 

252 


The  Un¬ 
merciful 
Servant. 


TEACHING  ABOUT  FORGIVENESS 


ism  seem  to  have  given  a  wrong  turn  to  the  parable. 

The  closing  verse,  35,  “  So  shall  also  my  Heavenly 
Father  do  unto  you,  if  ye  forgive  not  everyone  his 
brother  from  your  hearts,”  reads  like  a  later  and 
mistaken  comment.  The  context  of  the  parable  is 
the  duty  of  free  and  unfettered  forgiveness,  “  till 
seventy  times  seven.”  1  The  attitude  of  mind  which 
makes  this  possible  cannot  be  brought  about  by  a 
threat,  “  God  will  deliver  you  to  the  tormentors  until 
you  have  paid  all  that  is  due  for  your  sins,  unless  you 
forgive  your  brother  from  the  heart.”  You  can 
no  more  get  the  true  spirit  of  forgiveness  out  of  fear 
than  you  can  get  true  charity  or  loving-kindness  out 
of  the  principle,  “  Whatever,  Lord,  we  lend  to  Thee, 
repaid  a  thousand-fold  shall  be.”  There  is  no  hint 
in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  that  we  are  to  forgive 
our  enemies  only  if  they  forgive  theirs  or  if  they 
come  to  us  saying,  “  We  repent.”  Here,  as  elsewhere,  we 
must  choose  between  the  admission  that  at  certain 
times  Christ  fell  below  the  level  of  his  own  teaching, 
and  the  belief  that  a  single  verse  tacked  on  to  the  end 
of  a  parable  in  a  single  Gospel  may  be  a  well-meant 
but  a  misleading  gloss.  It  is  just  the  sort  of  addition 
which  might  be  made  in  order  to  round  off  the  instruc¬ 
tion  when  the  story  was  told  orally. 

Once  more  in  Matt.  vi.  15  we  have  the  double  “  If  ye  for* 

,,  -n  .  r  c  give  not.” 

statement,  positive  and  negative,  .bor  11  ye  forgive 

men  their  trespasses,  your  Heavenly  Father  will  also 

forgive  you.  But  if  ye  forgive  not  men  their  trespasses, 

neither  will  your  Father  forgive  your  trespasses.”  The 

1  Luke  xvii.  3,  4  has  the  parallel,  “If  seven  times  a  day  he  sin 
against  thee  and  seven  times  turn  again  to  thee  saying,  I  repent,  thou 
shalt  forgive  him.”  We  note  that  the  condition  of  repentance  is  absent 
from  Matthew. 


253 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


former  half  is  a  comment  on  the  clause  in  the  Lord’s 
Prayer  and  may  be  understood  as  already  explained. 
It  shows  us  what  we  must  be  like  in  order  to  respond  to 
God’s  forgiveness.  But  it  is  a  different  thing  to  say 
that  He  refuses  to  forgive  us  except  on  this  condition, 
and  the  negative  statement  seems  to  have  been  added 
by  the  Evangelist,  or  in  oral  tradition,  in  order  to  point 
the  moral  as  the  average  teacher  would  conceive  it. 
In  the  parallel  passage  in  Mark  xi.  25,  26  we  can 
actually  trace  the  process  at  work.  The  true  text 
has,  “  Whensoever  ye  stand  praying,  forgive,  if  ye  have 
aught  against  anyone  ;  that  your  Father  also  which 
is  in  heaven  may  forgive  you  your  trespasses.”  But 
some  scribes,  not  satisfied  with  this,  have  added  in 
later  MSS.,  “  But  if  ye  do  not  forgive,  neither  will  your 
Father  which  is  in  heaven  forgive  your  trespasses.” 

The  latter  verse  stands  in  the  A.V.,  but  is  omitted 
and  placed  in  the  margin  in  the  R.V.,  following 
Westcott  and  Hort  and  other  editors.  It  is  not  found 
in  k  or  B,  the  two  oldest  MSS.,  or  in  the  Old  Syriac. 
It  should  be  noted  that  there  are  in  it  several  verbal 
differences  from  Matt.  vi.  16,  indicating  that  it  has 
not  been  added  in  Mark  simply  in  order  to  bring  the 
two  Gospels  into  agreement  with  one  another. 

In  Matt,  xviii.  1 5  ff.  (“  If  thy  brother  sin  against 
thee  go  shew  him  his  fault,  etc.”)  forgiveness  is  not 
in  question  ;  if  it  were  it  would  contradict  the  teaching 
which  follows  in  verse  21  to  forgive  till  seventy  times 
seven.  The  point  is  the  virtue  of  helping  the  brother 
to  recognize  his  fault,  which  may  best  be  done  by  one 
who  has  already  forgiven  him.  This  he  may  do 
privately,  or  before  one  or  two  witnesses,  or  before 
“  the  congregation.”  Whether  our  Lord  can  ever 

254 


TEACHING  ABOUT  FORGIVENESS 


have  said  “  let  him  be  unto  thee  as  the  Gentile  and  the 
publican 55  is  another  question.  In  view  of  his 
teaching  and  attitude  to  publicans  and  Gentiles  it  is 
not  likely  that  he  should  have  used  these  terms  con¬ 
temptuously,  or  as  a  type  of  those  with  whom  the 
Christian  ought  to  have  no  intercourse.1 

The  sayings  about  “  binding  ”  and  cc  loosing  ” 
(Matt.  xvi.  19;  xviii.  18)  are  again  of  doubtful  authen¬ 
ticity.  But  in  any  case  they  do  not  refer  to  forgiveness 
of  sins,  but  are  technical  terms  in  Rabbinic  literature, 
referring  to  legislation ;  they  denote  the  actions  which 
are  allowed  or  prohibited  in  the  community. 


1  Dr  Headlam  ( The  Doctrine  of  the  Church  and  Reunion,  p.  32) 
defends  the  authenticity  of  the  words  on  the  ground  that  when  the 
Gospel  was  written  there  were  no  longer  any  publicans,  and  the  Gentiles 
were  admitted  to  the  Church  ;  they  must  therefore  be  spoken  from 
the  standpoint  of  a  Jewish  community.  But  in  this  case  it  is  more 
likely  that  they  represent  one  of  those  Judaic  touches  which  we  find  in 
the  First  Gospel  than  that  Jesus  himself  should  have  suggested  that 
Gentiles  or  publicans  were  to  be  avoided.  A  Jewish  Christian  might 
use  Gentile  in  the  sense  of  “unbeliever,”  and  publican  might  retain  its 
sting  even  after  the  class  had  disappeared. 


25s 


CHAPTER  XXI 


The  sove¬ 
reignty  of 
God. 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN 

As  has  already  been  shown,  Jesus  came  with  a  new 
message  about  God  and  His  relation  to  man  which, 
if  accepted  and  acted  on  by  the  nation  to  which  he 
first  appealed,  would  establish  a  new  age  for  the  world 
as  a  whole.  It  would  sweep  away  selfishness,  strife 
and  war,  and  would  bring  in  a  fundamentally  new 
condition  of  things,  in  which  man  would  do  the  will 
of  the  Father  completely,  as  in  heaven  so  on  earth. 
This  he  called  the  Kingdom  of  God,  or  of  Heaven,  a 
term  which  in  Jewish  thought  meant  the  sovereignty 
or  rule  of  God.1  From  one  point  of  view  indeed 
God  had  reigned  from  the  first,  but  His  reign  could 
only  be  effective  on  the  one  condition  that  individuals 
and  nations  alike  should  joyfully  accept  the  yoke  of 
the  Kingdom  and  perform  the  divine  will. 

Dalman  2  quotes  many  Jewish  sayings  to  illustrate 
both  these  points.  “  ‘  Before  our  father  Abraham 
came  into  the  world,  God  was,  as  it  were,  only  the  king 
of  heaven  ;  but  when  Abraham  came,  he  made  Him  to 

1  See  on  this  point  Dalman,  The  Words  of  Jesus,  p.  94  ff.  The 
fundamental  meaning  is  “the  full  realization  of  the  sovereignty  of 
God.”  Cf.  also  Lake  and  Foakes- Jackson,  The  Beginnings  of  Christianity , 
Part  I.,  p.  270  ff. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  96  ff. 

256 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN 


be  king  over  heaven  and  earth.’  Thereafter,  at  the 
Red  Sea  and  Sinai,  Israel  gave  allegiance  to  this  sove¬ 
reignty  of  God.”  The  proselyte  to  Judaism  “  takes 
upon  himself  the  sovereignty  of  heaven.”  A  Rabbi  of 
ioo  a.d.,  speaking  of  the  time  when  all  service  of  other 
gods  shall  be  abolished,  says,  “  Then  shall  God  alone 
be  absolute  in  all  the  world,  and  His  sovereignty  will 
endure  for  ever  and  ever.”  Another  ancient  prayer 
runs,  “  Our  King,  our  God,  make  Thy  name  one  in 
Thy  world,  make  Thy  sovereignty  absolute  in  Thy 
world,  and  make  absolute  the  remembrance  of  Thee  in 
Thy  world.” 

It  must,  of  course,  be  recognized  that  these  sayings 
are  of  different  dates,  and  probably  no  one  of  them  goes 
back  quite  to  the  time  of  Jesus.  But  this  does  not 
mean  that  he  cannot  have  held  a  similar  conception  of 
the  Kingdom,  for  our  documents  do  not  give  us  evidence 
of  any  alternative  conception  which  he  might  have 
entertained.  In  the  Old  Testament  we  do  not  find  the 
phrase  “  Kingdom  of  God,”  but  we  constantly  meet 
with  the  ideas  of  God  as  King  and  of  His  rule.1  In  such  God  in  the 
cases  the  reference  is  to  the  “  sovereignty  of  God  ”  in  ment^Sta" 
much  the  same  sense  as  in  the  Rabbinic  quotations  just 
given.  There  is,  however,  a  good  deal  of  uncertainty 
as  to  the  method  by  which  this  sovereignty  is  to  be  made 
a  realized  fact.  It  may  come  either  by  some  kind  of 
missionary  enterprise,  or  by  the  sudden  act  of  God  at  a 
moment  of  time,  in  which  case  its  establishment  must 
be  regarded  as  practically  coincident  with  “  the  Day 
of  the  Lord.”  In  many  cases  the  thought  of  the 
writer  seems  to  hover  between  the  two. 

It  is  indeed  strangely  suggested  by  Lake  and  Foakes- 

1  See  especially  Psa.  xciii.,  xcvi.-c.,  cxlv. ;  Dan.  vii. 

257  R 


The  King¬ 
dom  of 
God  and 
missionary 
enterprise. 


t 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 

Jackson 1  that  “  the  realization  of  the  sovereignty 
of  God  over  all  the  world  was  not  expected  to  be 
the  result  of  missionary  enterprise,  but  of  the  self- 
determined  act  of  God.”  This  statement  may  be 
generally  true  of  apocalyptic,  but  it  is  not  true  of  the 
Old  Testament.  The  preceding  sentence  to  that 
just  quoted  gives  a  reference  to  Isa.  xlv.  23,  which 
runs,  £';  I  have  sworn  by  myself  .  .  .  that  unto  me 
every  knee  shall  bow,  every  tongue  shall  swear.”  This 
follows  the  words,  “  Look  unto  me  and  be  ye  saved,  all 
the  ends  of  the  earth  :  for  I  am  God  and  there  is  none 
else.”  The  page  before,  collecting  passages  relating 
to  the  Kingdom,  refers  to  Psa.  cxlv. :  “  One  generation 
shall  laud  thy  works  to  another  and  shall  declare  thy 
mighty  acts  ”  (verse  4)  ;  “  they  shall  speak  of  the  glory 
of  thy  kingdom,  and -talk  of  thy  power  ;  to  make  known 
to  the  sons  of  men  his  mighty  acts,  and  the  glory  of  the 
majesty  of  his  kingdom  ”  (verses  11,  12)  ;  “  my  mouth 
shall  speak  the  praise  of  the  Lord;  and  let  all  flesh 
bless  his  holy  name  for  ever  and  ever  ”  (verse  21).  These 
are  not  bad  descriptions  of  “  missionary  enterprise  ”  ; 
they  envisage  the  “  Kingdom”  as  coming  by  the  pro¬ 
clamation  of  those  who  have  known  God’s  goodness, 
and  by  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  who  hear. 
Passing  beyond  references  actually  given  by  Dr  Lake, 
we  may  instance  Psa.  xcvi,  <£  Tell  it  out  among  the 
heathen  that  the  Lord  is  king,”  or  the  whole  of  Psa. 
lxvii.2 

1  The  Beginnings  of  Christianity,  p.  271. 

2  The  list  of  missionary  passages  from  the  Old  Testament  might  be 
extended,  especially  by  the  inclusion  of  references  from  the  second 
part  of  Isaiah,  but  we  have  confined  ourselves  to  those  which  connect 
the  idea  of  the  realization  of  God’s  sovereignty  with  the  proclamation 
of  it  by  His  people. 


258 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN 


The  outstanding  example  in  the  Old  Testament  of 
the  realization  of  the  divine  sovereignty  by  an  eschato¬ 
logical  intervention  is  Daniel  vii.,  but  we  have  no 
reason  to  assume  that  this  conception  is  decisive  for 
the  interpretation  of  the  Gospels.  In  the  first  place, 
we  have  the  alternative  conception  to  which  wre  have 
just  referred,  according  to  which  God’s  rule  comes  by 
the  co-operation  of  His  people.  In  the  second  place,  it 
is  important  to  note  that  the  actual  phrase  “  Kingdom  ,  - 

of  God  ”  or  “  Heaven  ”  nowhere  occurs  in  literature  God  not  a 
earlier  than  the  Gospels;  there  is  one  doubtful  example  apocalyptic 
in  apocalyptic  literature.  We  cannot  therefore  assume,  Phrase* 
as  is  so  often  assumed,  that  when  Jesus  announced  that 
the  Kingdom  of  God  was  at  hand  he  was  using  a  current 
apocalyptic  idea  which  could  only  have  meant  that 
the  world  was  coming  to  an  end.1  All  it  necessarily 
implied  was  that  the  long-expected  sovereignty  of 
God  was  at  last  to  be  realized. 

How  was  it  to  come  ?  That  is  the  real  question. 

It  may  be  granted  in  the  first  place  that  there  was  a  The 
sense  in  which  Jesus  expected  the  Kingdom  to  come  wasat°m 
soon.  Surely  the  new  things  he  had  to  say  about  God  hand* 
and  the  nature  of  the  obedience  He  asked  for  had  only 
to  be  put  before  men  for  them  to  welcome  them 
eagerly ;  to  those  who  knew  the  meaning  of  love  his 
yoke  was  easy  and  his  burden  light  and  readily  to  be 
accepted,  in  contrast  to  those  who  laid  upon  men’s 
shoulders  things  hard  to  be  borne.  To  himself  the 
truth  and  the  attraction  of  his  conceptions  were  so 


1  It  is  true  that  Matt.  iii.  2  represents  the  Baptist  as  using  the 
term,  but  it  is  not  found  in  this  connection  either  in  Mark  or  Luke, 
and  the  view  is  probably  right  which  regards  its  attribution  to  the 
Baptist  as  an  addition  made  by  Matthew  in  order  to  assimilate  his 
teaching  to  that  of  Jesus. 

259 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


It  is  not 
destructive. 


obvious  and  clear  that,  like  many  teachers,  he  pictured 
them  as  winning  their  way  very  quickly  ;  the  Kingdom 
of  God  was  indeed  at  hand,  if  men  would  listen  to  him. 
Whether,  in  fact,  it  came  or  not  it  was  in  any  case  there 
for  the  taking.  No  doubt  there  was  to  be  a  period  of 
opposition  to  the  sons  of  the  Kingdom  in  which, 
just  as  he  was  to  suffer  himself,  so  his  followers  must 
expect  persecution  in  their  turn.  But  the  Kingdom 
was  there  in  their  midst  for  those  who  could  receive  it ; 
it  was  also  near  for  the  world  as  a  whole  if  the  nation 
would  yield  to  his  teaching. 

But  while  in  this  sense  Jesus  looked  on  the  Kingdom 
as  near,  there  were  in  his  teaching  two  fundamental 
differences  from  the  popular  eschatological  view  of  the 
future. 

I.  The  great  denouement  which  was  expected  was, 
as  the  preceding  pages  have  shown,  for  many  a  catas¬ 
trophe  of  destruction.  But,  even  taking  the  Gospels  as 
they  stand,  the  main  stress  in  our  Lord’s  teaching  is  on 
the  coming  of  the  Kingdom  as  something  positive  and 
beneficent.  It  is  essentially  a  good  news,  a  gospel. 
There  was  indeed  the  inexorable  working  of  causation 
by  which  some  would  find  themselves  outside  the 
Kingdom,  but  it  is  not  a  great  assize  in  which  God  as 
Judge  will  give  free  play  to  the  wrath  which  His  mercy 
has  heretofore  restrained.  As  has  been  pointed  out,1 
when  at  Nazareth  Christ  quotes  Isa.  lxi.,  the  good  news 
of  the  release  of  the  captives,  he  closes  with  the  words, 
“  To  proclaim  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord  ”  ;  it  is 
not  his  mission,  as  it  was  the  mission  of  the  Baptist, 
to  proclaim  also  “  the  day  of  vengeance  of  our  God.” 

And  this  is  no  isolated  example.  Apocalyptic 

1  See  p.  95. 

260 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN 


passages,  referring  to  the  Messiah,  constantly  harp  on 
the  destructive  side  of  his  work  as  described  in  Psa.  ii. 
or  Isa.  xi. :  “  He  shall  bruise  them  with  a  rod  of 
iron  ”  ;  “  he  shall  smite  the  wicked  with  the  rod  of  his 
mouth.”  These  are  constantly  quoted  in  the  earlier 
books,  but  Jesus  never  applies  them  to  himself,  or 
suggests  that  this  type  of  vengeance  is,  or  is  to  be,  part 
of  his  work,  except  in  some  of  the  more  doubtful  “  Son 
of  Man  ”  passages  which  we  shall  examine  later. 

Publicly,  indeed,  he  does  not  declare  himself  as  Messiah 
at  all  until  the  answer  to  the  High  Priest  at  the  trial. 

The  Entry  into  Jerusalem  comes  nearest  to  such  a 
declaration,  and  it  is  remarkable  that  it  deliberately  looks 
back  to  Zech.  ix.  9,  a  passage  which  explicitly  pictures 
the  Messiah  as  a  king  of  peace,  not  as  conqueror  or 
judge  ;  he  is  righteous,  having  salvation,  and  lowly. 

2.  Again,  in  apocalyptic,  the  coming  of  the  end  An  act  of 
was  conceived  of  as  solely  an  act  of  God,  to  come  when  ditioned^by 
He  willed.  No  doubt  His  time  was  not  purely  arbi-  ? 

trary  ;  it  had  some  relation  to  the  state  of  the  world. 

But  it  was  not  conditioned  by  man’s  readiness  to  receive 
it,  but  rather  by  his  unreadiness.  It  is  to  come  when 
wickedness  and  ungodliness  are  most  near  their  triumph, 
when  the  oppressed  righteous  remnant  sees  no  hope  of 
good.  It  is  the  deus  ex  machina ,  interposing  at  the  very 
last  and  most  desperate  moment.1  Now  for  us  it  is 
beyond  question  a  foundation  truth  that  the  Kingdom, 
like  all  else  which  is  good,  is  a  gift  of  God.  Man 
cannot  create  or  bring  it  of  himself.  But  we  have  also 
come  to  realize  more  clearly  the  counter-truth  that  its 

1  This  is  true  of  the  apocalyptic  literature  though,  as  we  have  seen, 
some  of  the  Old  Testament  writers  realized  the  part  the  nation  might 
play  as  missionary  agent.  And  later  Rabbinic  thought  rose  to  the 
higher  conception  that  if  Israel  could  repent,  the  Messiah  would  come. 

26l 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


coming  must  depend  on  man’s  response.  If  the  con¬ 
summation  which  Christ  called  the  Kingdom  were 
indeed  simply  a  great  assize  in  which  the  good  were  to 
be  rewarded  and  the  wicked  punished,  it  might  come 
just  when  God  willed.  But  if  it  meant  the  state  in 
which  God’s  will  is  to  be  done  by  men  co-operating 
with  Him  as  free  spirits,  it  could  not  be  imposed  from 
without  at  a  predetermined  point  of  time.  It  would 
not  be  in  this  sense  the  Kingdom  at  all  if  it  came  thus. 
This  is  now  to  us  a  commonplace  which  is  accepted  by 
almost  every  religious  thinker.  Why  should  we  take 
it  for  granted  that  it  was  impossible  for  Jesus  to 
realize  this  truth  ? 

If,  then,  the  coming  of  the  Kingdom  is  ultimately 
determined  by  man’s  response  to  God’s  offer,  we  must 
interpret  the  words  “  Repent,  for  the  Kingdom  is  at 
hand  ”  as  including  the  meaning  “  Repent  and  the 
Kingdom  will  come.”  Repentance  implied  not  merely 
sorrow  for  past  wrong-doing  but  a  complete  change  of 
attitude  which  could  only  come  from  the  Spirit  of 
God.  And  though  God  was  always  ready  to  bring  the 
Kingdom,  yet  it  was  then  near  and  possible  in  a  special 
sense  just  because  the  presence  of  Christ  implied  a 
unique  opportunity  for  this  change  of  attitude.  The 
cry  also  meant  for  the  individual  “  Repent  and  the 
Kingdom  will  have  come.”  It  will  have  come  already 
to  you,  though  not  to  those  who  have  not  repented. 
As  Jesus  himself  insists,  it  is  like  the  treasure  hid  in  the 
field,  or  the  pearl  of  great  price,  which  each  one  finds 
for  himself,  each  in  his  turn  and  as  it  comes  to  him. 
It  is  the  process  by  which  we  work  out  our  own  salva¬ 
tion  as  God  wTorks  in  us.  But  it  is  also  corporate 
in  that  those  who  lend  themselves  whole-heartedly  to 

262 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN 


doing  the  will  of  God  are  bound  together  in  a  fellow¬ 
ship  which  becomes  the  light  of  the  world,  the  leaven 
in  the  mass.  When  the  light  shines  as  it  should, 
when  the  leaven  does  its  work,  the  Kingdom  does  so 
far  come  with  power.  In  oriental  imagery  it  might 
be  said  that  the  Son  of  Man — the  ideal  humanity — * 
was  manifested,  seen  at  the  right  hand  of  God. 

The  great  question,  then,  which  emerges  with  regard  Present  or 
to  the  philosophy  of  Jesus  is  not  so  much  whether  cess  or  pr° 
he  foreshortened  the  process,  seeing  the  triumphant  ^ 

climax  as  near  in  his  own  piercing  vision  of  the  truth 
and  his  conviction  of  the  appeal  of  that  truth  to  men, 
but  whether  he  saw  it  as  a  process  at  all  or  merely  as  a 
single  catastrophic  act  of  God  thrust  on  the  world  from 
without.  Discussions  on  the  significance  of  the  King¬ 
dom  of  God  in  the  Gospels  turn  largely  on  the  question 
whether  it  is  present  or  future.1  It  is  quite  obvious 
that,  if  it  means  the  actualization  of  the  rule  of  God 
on  earth,  it  must  be  spoken  of,  as  it  is  spoken  of  in 
the  Gospels,  as  both  ;  the  gift  is  offered  to  all  and 
accepted  by  some  ;  its  universal  acceptance  is  still  in  the 
future.  But  the  real  point  is  the  method  and  condition 
of  its  coming.  When  it  is  shown  that  the  Kingdom 
was  regarded  as  future,  it  is  frequently  taken  for  granted 
that  this  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  its  coming  was 
so  pictured  as  to  imply  the  acceptance  of  Jewish 
apocalyptic.  It  is  hard  to  see  the  justification  for 
this. 

We  have  already  noted  that  the  actual  phrase  “  King¬ 
dom  of  God  ”  or  “  of  Heaven  ”  does  not  occur  at  all 
in  the  apocalyptic  literature,  and  there  is  no  reason  for 
supposing  that  the  message  of  its  nearness  would  neces- 

1  E.g.  in  Lake  and  Foakes- Jackson,  op.  cit.,  p.  278  ff. 

263 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


sarily  imply  the  end  of  the  world  in  a  catastrophic 
sense.  Christ  very  seldom  gave  a  direct  answer  to  a 
question,  but  on  being  asked  (Luke  xvii.  20)  when 
the  Kingdom  of  God  should  come,  he  broke  his  rule 
and  replied  quite  definitely  that  it  did  not  come  with 
observation  ;  they  should  not  say,  “  Lo,  here  or  Lo, 
there  ”  ;  for  the  Kingdom  was  within  them.1  It 
is  quite  true  that  the  following  section  in  Luke  xvii. 
speaks  of  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man  as  the  lightning 
visible  to  all  and  as  happening  at  a  point  of  time.  But 
the  Kingdom  is  not  mentioned  at  all  in  that  section. 
And  it  is,  in  fact,  in  connection  with  the  Son  of  Man 
that  we  find  the  passages  which  really  do  have  an 
apocalyptic  colouring.  We  shall  consider  in  due  course 
the  problems  they  raise.  Meanwhile  we  note  that, 
even  taking  the  Gospels  as  they  stand,  with  all  their 
intrusive  elements  of  Jewish  apocalyptic,  there  are 
very  few  cases  in  which  the  Kingdom  occurs  in  what 
is  necessarily  an  eschatological  setting.2  No  doubt 
there  are  other  passages  which  admit  such  an  inter¬ 
pretation — e.g.  the  central  message  that  the  Kingdom 
is  at  hand — but  they  do  not  require  it.3  They  are 
understood  in  the  eschatological  sense  only  under  the 
pressure  of  the  general  hypothesis,  based  on  other 

1  The  alternative  translation  “in  your  midst"  comes  to  much  the 
same  thing  from  this  point  of  view. 

2  The  most  important  are  the  explanation  of  the  parable  of  the 
Tares  (Matt.  xiii.  37  ff.),  on  which  see  p.  241,  and  the  saying  in  Matt, 
xvi.  28,  see  p.  283.  In  Luke  xxi.  31  (“Know  that  the  Kingdom  of 
God  is  nigh  ’’)  the  Kingdom  occurs  in  a  definitely  eschatological  setting. 
But  Luke  is  here  following  Mark,  and  the  phrase  is  simply  a  paraphrase 
of  Mark’s  “  Know  ye  that  he  (or  it)  is  nigh  at  the  doors  "  (Mark  xiii.  29), 
where  there  is  no  mention  of  the  Kingdom.  On  the  whole  section,  see 
below,  p.  288. 

3  This  applies  especially  to  the  enigmatic  saying  at  the  Last  Supper 
about  drinking  the  new  wine  in  the  Kingdom  of  God  (Mark  xiv.  25 
and  parallels ;  cf.  also  Luke  xxii.  29). 

264 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN 


passages,  that  this  feature  is,  in  fact,  authentic  and 
central  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  But  if  the  hypothesis 
is  rejected,  they  at  once  become  susceptible  of  another 
and  an  easier  explanation.  The  Kingdom  was  to  come 
as  men  learnt  to  do  God’s  will  on  earth.  Jesus  was 
there  to  teach  them  that  will  and  to  help  them  to 
perform  it. 


265 


CHAPTER  XXII 


Improving 
the  world  or 
ending  it  ? 


"  Interims- 
ethik.”- 


SALVATION  NATIONAL  AND  INTERNATIONAL 

How  far  is  the  general  trend  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
consistent  with  the  view  we  have  taken  of  the  signifi¬ 
cance  of  the  Kingdom  ?  Does  it  contemplate  the 
improvement  of  the  world  or  its  speedy  dissolution  ? 
Some  at  least  of  those  who  hold  that  the  approaching 
end  was  the  chief  message  of  Christ  have  seen  what 
this  implies  with  respect  to  his  moral  teaching  and  its 
purpose.  The  ordinary  reader  takes  it  for  granted  that 
the  practice  of  love  and  forgiveness  is  intended  to 
make  the  world  a  better  place  to  live  in.  Not  so,  say 
the  supporters  of  “  the  eschatological  theory.”  The 
commands  to  give  and  to  forgive  are  simply  the  rules 
by  which  the  individual  may  secure  his  own  place  in 
the  Kingdom  and  escape  the  doom  which  is  to  engulf 
the  rest. 

It  is  urged  that  only  on  this  supposition  can  we 
explain  Christ’s  attitude  towards  wealth,  family  and 
social  life,  his  commands  to  give  to  all,  to  resist  not 
evil,  to  forgive  enemies,  together  with  the  ignoring 
of  political  and  aesthetic  interests.  The  ulterior 
effects  of  the  conduct  he  requires  may  be  put  aside  ; 
the  teaching  is  not  meant  for  men  living  under  normal 
conditions.  It  is  for  a  temporary  crisis,  where,  as  in 
war,  the  considerations  which  hold  good  in  ordinary 

266 


SALVATION  NATIONAL  &  INTERNATIONAL 

life  are  suspended.1  The  supreme  need  is  that  the 
disciple,  by  obedience  to  these  otherwise  extravagant 
and  impossible  demands,  shall  secure  his  place  in  the 
coming  Kingdom  Compared  with  this,  nothing  else 
now  counts,  and  here  is  the  sole  motive  for  obedience. 
According  to  Weiss,  just,  as  in  the  case  of  Jesus  himself, 
his  readiness  to  love  his  enemies  was  mainly  a  proof  of 
his  detachment  from  the  world,  so  the  commands  to 
the  disciples  to  do  the  same  are  addressed  to  men  who 
have  here  no  abiding  city,  but  seek  the  Kingdom  of 
God.2  “  We  are  to  do  good  to  those  who  hate  us,  not 
so  much  in  order  to  help  them,  but  much  more  in  order 
to  prove  that  we  ourselves  are  free  from  enmity  and 
selfishness.  Certainly  prayer  for  enemies  may  benefit 
them,  but  in  the  foreground  stands  simply  care  for 
our  own  soul,  which  shows  by  such  prayers  that  it 
bears  a  charm  against  hatred  and  bitterness.”  3  So 
with  regard  to  the  command  to  resist  not  evil,  “  there 
is  no  suggestion  that  the  enemy  is  to  be  shamed  and 
reformed  by  patient  long-suffering ;  that  idea  is  quite 
alien.  The  whole  stress  lies  on  the  readiness  to  suffer 
wrong.”  Weiss  indeed  admits 4  that  at  other  times 
Jesus  does  speak  more  as  a  preacher  and  reformer  than 
as  the  herald  of  the  Kingdom,  and  that  he  sometimes 
attempts  to  improve  and  help  the  world,  as  though 
it  might  be  expected  to  continue.  But  with  regard  to 
this  admission,  as  with  regard  to  all  others  which  he  is 
forced  to  make  of  the  existence  of  other  moods  in  the 
thought  of  Jesus,  he  urges  that  it  does  not  represent 
his  real  mind.  This  is  to  be  found  rather  in  despair 
of  the  world  and  in  an  insistent  constraining  of 

1  J.  Weiss,  Die  Predigl  Jesu  vom  Reiche  Gottes  (2nd  ed.),  p.  139. 

2  P.  149-  3  P.  150-  4  Pp.  J37»  I45* 

267 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Does  the 
Sermon 
simply  state 
the  condi¬ 
tions  on 
which  a  few 
may  escape 
the  common 
doom  ? 


the  individual  to  secure  his  own  salvation  while 
he  may. 

In  considering  this  somewhat  remarkable  position  we 
may  at  least  note  that  forgiveness  of  enemies  had  not 
been  a  prominent  feature  in  previous  apocalyptic 
thought,  and,  if  Jesus  was  simply  adopting  the  same 
general  outlook,  it  is  not  quite  clear  why  he  should 
have  laid  such  stress  on  this  particular  point  as  the  thing 
which  really  counted  in  the  preparation  of  the  indi¬ 
vidual.  But  with  all  due  respect  for  the  learned  and 
sincere  thinkers  who  have  taken  this  view  it  is  difficult 
to  treat  it  very  seriously.  It  obviously  robs  love  of 
others  of  all  its  meaning  by  making  it  simply  an  en¬ 
lightened  form  of  selfishness ;  and  the  remarkable 
thing  is  that,  e.g.  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  what 
may  seem  the  extreme  commands  to  love  and  to 
forgive  are  never  associated  in  any  way  with  the  idea 
that  the  time  is  short.1  We  are  not  told  to  give  away 
our  coat  because  there  is  not  going  to  be  another  winter 
and  we  shall  not  want  it  for  long.  It  is  not  surprising, 
therefore,  that  more  recent  supporters  of  the  eschato¬ 
logical  view  have  quietly  dropped  this  side  of  the 
theory.  But  we  are  entitled  to  insist  that  it  shall  not 
thus  be  dropped.  The  issue  is  fundamental.  If  Jesus 
really  thought  that  the  world  was  quickly  coming  to 
an  end  there  could  be  no  point  in  trying  to  improve  it. 


1  For  a  fuller  discussion  of  this  theory,  which  is  known  as  "  Interims* 
ethik”  ( i.e .  an  ethical  teaching  intended  only  for  a  short  interval),  I 
would  refer  to  my  article,  “  Is  the  Teaching  of  Jesus  an  Interimsethik  ?  ” 
{Expositor,  viii.  4) ;  I  have  ventured  to  reproduce  one  or  two  para¬ 
graphs  from  it.  I  have  also  examined  the  views  of  J.  Weiss  and 
Schweitzer  at  greater  length  in  The  Eschatological  Question  in  the 
Gospels.  I  should  now  modify  the  position  there  adopted  by  being 
less  ready  to  allow  the  possibility  that  the  expectation  of  a  catastrophic 
end  may  have  held  even  a  subordinate  place  in  the  thought  of  Jesus, 

268 


SALVATION  NATIONAL  &  INTERNATIONAL 


If,  on  the  other  hand,  he  looked  out  on  life  as  he  knew  - 
it  with  a  clear  and  piercing  vision  of  what  it  might 
become  if  man  would  only  let  God  in  and  try  His 
methods  of  love  and  persuasion,  there  was  no  room 
for  the  expectation  of  the  immediate  external  catas¬ 
trophe.  We  must  choose  between  the  two  points  of 
view  unless  we  are  to  believe  that  the  outlook  of  Jesus 
on  the  world  and  its  future  was  entirely  vacillating  on 
this  question  of  principle. 

We  take  it,  then,  that  Jesus  did  mean  his  followers  Christ's 
to  improve  the  world  and  not  merely  to  save  their  own  iQT 
souls  from  the  coming  doom.  It  would  seem  that  he 
also  meant  them  to  save  the  world  as  Jews.  In  the 
forefront  of  the  Sermon  we  have  a  series  of  sayings 
which  set  before  his  hearers  the  ideal  of  proving  them¬ 
selves  the  salt  of  the  earth  and  the  light  of  the  world, 
the  city  set  on  the  hill,  the  lamp  illuminating  all  in  the 
house.  Their  light  is  to  shine  before  men  that  they 
too  may  be  drawn  to  the  Father  ;  the  meek  are  to 
inherit  the  earth.  There  is  no  real  reason  for  supposing 
that  these  words  are  addressed  only  to  a  little  group 
with  the  idea  that  they  in  their  turn  should  influence 
other  little  groups.  They  are  quite  general  in  their 
application,  spoken  to  all  who  have  ears  to  hear.  As 
has  been  suggested  above,1  they  become  doubly  signifi¬ 
cant  if  understood  as  an  appeal  to  the  Jewish  nation 
to  rise  to  its  opportunity  and  become  the  salvation  of 
the  earth.  No  doubt  the  work  will  be  begun  by  the 
nucleus  among  them  who  accept  his  teaching.  These 
are  the  grain  of  mustard  seed,  the  little  leaven,  of 
which  the  parables  speak.  But  the  seed  is  to  grow  till 
it  becomes  a  tree  in  which  the  birds  take  shelter ; 

1  See  Chap.  xii. 

269 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


The  instinct 
of  patriot¬ 
ism. 


Apocalyptic 
its  psychic 
equivalent. 


the  leaven  is  to  expand  till  it  leavens  the  lump.  First, 
this  is  to  happen  within  the  nation  ;  then  within  the 
world.  One  of  Christ’s  somewhat  rare  quotations 
from  the  Old  Testament  is  the  great  saying  of  Isa. 
lvii.  7  which  sees  in  the  Temple  the  house  of  prayer 
for  all  nations.  His  indictment  of  the  religion  of  the 
day  is  precisely  that  it  makes  this  impossible.1 

The  Jews  have  always  been  essentially  patriotic,  with 
a  keen  sense  of  their  race,  its  greatness  and  its  possi¬ 
bilities,  and  the  contemporaries  of  Jesus  were  no 
exception.  The  history  of  the  first  century  a.d.,  with 
its  conflicts  with  Rome  culminating  in  the  great 
revolt  and  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  proves  this  completely. 
Now  a  deep-seated,  emotional  instinct  of  this  type 
cannot  be  ignored.  Adopting  the  principles  of  modern 
psychology,  one  of  three  things  may  happen  :  (i)  The 
instinct  may  attempt  to  find  its  immediate  and  direct 
expression  in  the  kind  of  action  to  which  it  obviously 
points ;  i.e.  it  may  vent  itself  in  political  and  imperial¬ 
istic  attempts  at  conquest.  With  many  Jews  of  the 
first  century  this  actually  happened  in  the  futile 
resistance  to  Rome,  a  policy  with  which  Jesus  had 
nothing  in  common. 

(2)  Where  the  natural  outlet  was  impossible,  as  it 
was  to  those  who  realized  the  absurdity  of  attempting 
to  overcome  Rome  by  force  of  arms,  the  instinct 
might  by  suppression  become  a  “  complex,”  finding 
for  itself  another  outlet.  Apocalyptic,  with  its 
glorious  visions  of  a  supernatural  future,  was  just  such 
an  outlet.  For  a  later  period  it  has  been  pointed 
out  that  “  chiliasm  ”  was  most  popular  in  Phrygia, 
Egypt  and  Roman  Africa,  where  patriotism  was  both 


1  Mark  xi.  17. 


27O 


SALVATION  NATIONAL  &  INTERNATIONAL 


naturally  strong  and  also  repressed.  “  Chiliasm  was  a 
psychic  equivalent  for  patriotism.5’  1 2 

“  So  far  as  his  conscious  mind  was  concerned, 
the  Phrygian  might  be  perfectly  reconciled  to  Roman 
political  supremacy.  .  .  .  Yet  the  emotional  energy 
of  his  patriotism  remained,  and  it  naturally  associated 
itself  with  any  idea  that  lay  at  hand.  Chiliasm  hap¬ 
pened  to  be  at  hand.  The  glorified  divine  Kingdom  of 
the  Saints  of  God  on  earth  was  the  psychic  equivalent 
of  that  Phrygian  Kingdom  whose  national  existence 
had  been  for  ever  extinguished  by  Rome.55  The 
heretical  chiliasm  of  Phrygia  placed  the  reign  of 
Christ  not  in  Jerusalem  but  in  Pepuza,  a  small  town  of 
Phrygia.  “  Similarly  the  national  patriotism  which 
under  other  historical  circumstances  might  have  found 
expression  in  the  glory  of  an  independent  Egypt  now 
found  expression  in  the  borrowed  phraseology  of  Jewish 
and  Christian  apocalyptical  literature.55  2 

This  seems  to  have  happened  no  less  with  the  Jews 
of  the  Christian  era.  What  we  find  in  apocalyptic 
is  not  a  purified  or  spiritualized  nationalism,  but  a 
nationalism  which  projects  itself  upon  the  future  and 
looks  for  its  satisfaction  in  the  completely  miraculous 
act  of  the  national  God,  who  will  somehow  meet  the 
wishes  of  His  people.  It  is  really  parallel  to  the  day¬ 
dreams  which  we  all  experience  in  some  form  or 
another.3  The  powerful  ambition  which  sees  no 
prospect  of  its  satisfaction  in  the  natural  course  of 

1  See  L.  P.  Edwards,  The  Transformation  of  Early  Christianity  from 
an  Eschatological  to  a  Socialized  Movement,  p.  80.  By  "chiliasm,”  or 
millenarianism,  is  meant  the  expectation  of  the  Messianic  Kingdom  on 
earth  for  ‘‘a  thousand  years.” 

2  Edwards,  op.  cit.,  p.  82. 

3  Cf.  Chap.  ii. 


271 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Missionary 
enterprise 
the  subli¬ 
mation  of 
patriotism. 


events  pictures  itself  as  receiving  some  fairy  gift  or 
magic  secret  which  will  lead  to  a  triumphant  success. 
Another,  with  an  enthusiasm  for  music,  but  with  no 
corresponding  power  of  execution,  dreams  of  himself 
suddenly  dowered  with  a  talisman  by  which  he  plays 
as  never  man  played  before.  The  struggling  golfer 
sees  himself  with  the  infallible  secret  of  straight  and 
long  driving ;  the  halting  speaker  with  a  sudden 
gift  of  golden  oratory.  Apocalyptic  on  a  larger  scale 
offered  the  same  imaginary  compensation  to  the  baffled 
patriotism  of  the  Jew.  Again,  if  our  contention  is 
right,  Jesus  refused  to  lead  him  along  this  road. 

(3)  But  an  instinct  may  be  deliberately  sublimated, 
i.e.  consciously  directed  into  a  worthy  channel,  so  that 
it  makes  for  itself  an  expression  which  is  of  service 
both  to  the  individual  and  to  the  community.  The 
sublimation  of  patriotism  is  to  be  found  in  the  mis¬ 
sionary  spirit  which,  with  no  thought  of  the  glorification 
of  its  own  Church,  qua  Church,  is  filled  with  the 
enthusiasm  of  a  message  and  a  vision  which  it  desires 
to  see  the  property  of  the  world  at  large. 

It  has  been  pointed  out  in  the  last  chapter  that  such  a 
sense  of  missionary  vocation,  the  conviction  that  God 
had  chosen  Israel  not  for  its  own  glorification  but  that 
it  might  be  the  light  and  saviour  of  the  Gentiles,  is 
found  in  the  best  of  the  prophetic  teaching,  notably 
in  the  latter  part  of  Isaiah  and  in  some  of  the  Psalms. 
In  a  remarkable  recent  book ,  Early  Judaism,1  it  has  been 
suggested  that  the  history  of  the  Jews  after  the  exile  is 
largely  a  conflict  between  this  principle  and  the 
opposing  principle  of  national  pride  and  exclusiveness. 
The  latter  triumphed,  and  the  self-contained  satisfac- 

1  By  L.  E.  Browne. 

272 


SALVATION  NATIONAL  &  INTERNATIONAL 


tion  which  this  triumph  brought  in  its  train  was  the 
main  cause  of  the  rejection  of  the  Messiah  when  he 
came.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  Jesus  in  setting  before  his 
nation  a  missionary  ideal  was  both  going  back  to  the 
best  of  the  prophetic  teaching  and  also  offering  to  the 
aspirations  of  his  nation  the  one  channel  in  which  they 
might  find  satisfaction.  He  likens  his  teaching  in  the 
breadth  of  its  appeal  to  the  teaching  of  Jonah  at 
Nineveh  1  ;  the  Queen  of  the  South  came  to  hear  the 
wisdom  of  Solomon.  The  fame  and  the  teaching  of 
one  who  is  greater  than  Jonah  or  Solomon  will  in 
the  end  spread  no  less  widely.  The  acceptance 
of  this  teaching  will  be  the  vindication  of  Jesus, 
pictured  as  the  Son  of  Man  seated  on  the  clouds  of 
heaven. 

The  fact  that  his  own  mission  was  confined  to  Jews 
may  be  best  explained  by  this  conviction  that  they 
were  the  people  of  God,  through  whom  his  message 
would  in  the  end  find  its  way  to  all  nations.  What¬ 
ever  view  be  taken  of  the  authenticity  of  particular 
injunctions  to  evangelize  the  Gentiles,  it  cannot 
seriously  be  held  on  any  theory  of  his  teaching  that 
he  was  indifferent  to  their  fate.  He  concentrated  on 
the  Jewish  nation,  as  by  common  consent  he  concen¬ 
trated  with  even  greater  intensity  upon  the  band  of  his 
disciples,  in  order  that  in  each  case  he  might  perfect 
the  instrument.  To  convert  the  disciples  was  the 
best  way  to  convert  the  nation  ;  and  to  convert  the 
nation  in  such  a  sense  that  its  practical  attitude  towards 
the  world  should  become  a  visible  expression  of  its 

1  Matt.  xii.  40  makes  the  point  of  the  reference  the  comparison 
between  Jonah  in  the  whale  and  the  burial  of  Christ;  a  comparison 
with  xvi.  4  and  Luke  xi.  29  shows  that  this  is  one  of  the  frequent 
additions  made  by  the  editor  of  the  First  Gospel. 

273 


s 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


new  conception  of  God — this  was  in  the  end  to  convert 
the  Gentile.  And  this  task  was  the  one  outlet  for  the 
intense  national  spirit  which  Jesus  could  neither 
ignore  nor  yet  endorse  in  the  forms  in  which  it  had 
heretofore  clothed  itself. 


274 


CHAPTER  XXIII 


THE  SON  OF  MAN 


Before  discussing  the  meaning  of  this  title  in  the 
Gospels,  something  must  be  said  of  its  previous  history. 

{a)  It  is  used  in  the  Old  Testament,  especially  in 
poetic  parallelism,  as  equivalent  to  “  humanity  55  or  the  Old 
“  man  in  general  ”  ;  the  plural  “  sons  of  men  ”  is  Testament* 
still  more  common.  According  to  Hebrew  usage, 

“  son  of  ”  means  the  member  of  a  class.  Further, 
the  word  for  “  man  ”  is  Adam  ;  when  it  has  the 
article  (a  the  ”)  it  means  man  ;  without  the  article 
it  may  mean  Adam.  In  this  particular  expression 
the  article  is  generally  omitted  ;  it  might  therefore 
mean,  or  at  least  suggest,  “  son  of  Adam.”  The 
outstanding  example  of  its  use  as  equivalent  to  man 
is  Psa.  viii. : 


“  What  is  man  that  thou  art  mindful  of  him  ? 

And  the  son  of  man  that  thou  visitest  him  ? 

For  thou  hast  made  him  but  a  little  lower  than  God 
And  crownest  him  with  glory  and  honour. 

Thou  madest  him  to  have  dominion  over  the  works  of  thy 
hands ; 

Thou  hast  put  all  things  under  his  feet.” 

(b)  Closely  connected  is  the  use  in  Ezekiel.  It  is 
applied  to  the  prophet  (“  thou  son  of  man  ”)  over 
ninety  times,  and  is  first  used  after  he  has  seen  “  one 

275 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


The  Son  of 
man  in 
Enoch . 


with  the  appearance  of  a  man.”  “  It  is  as  though  the 
Voice  had  said,  I  manifest  myself  to  thee  as  Man, 
and  thou  art  in  my  likeness  c  son  of  man.5  55  1 

(c)  The  use  in  Dan.  vii.  9  ff.  is  in  line  with  the  Old 
Testament  meaning,  though  it  marks  a  definite  develop¬ 
ment.  The  figure  “  like  unto  a  son  of  man,55  who 
comes  on  the  clouds  of  heaven  and  is  brought  to  the 
Ancient  of  Days  to  receive  the  Kingdom,  is  definitely 
explained  as  symbolizing  Israel,  the  saints  of  the  Most 
High  (verses  18,  22,  27).  It  is  not  the  Messiah  but 
a  personification  of  the  nation.  In  the  seer’s  vision 
Israel  stands  for  the  true  ideal  of  humanity,  opposed 
to  the  “  beasts,55  the  hostile  world-empires  which 
embody  brute  force  and  all  the  elements  which  run 
counter  to  the  purpose  of  God  for  man. 

(ct)  A  further  development  is  found  in  the  Simili¬ 
tudes  of  Enoch.1 2  On  its  first  occurrence  the  phrase  is 
“  one  whose  face  was  as  the  appearance  of  a  man,55  3 
and  afterwards  we  find  “  the  55  or  “  that 55  Son  of  man, 
referring  back  to  the  original  description.  It  is  not 
quite  a  definite  title  of  the  Messiah,  but  it  is  a  descrip¬ 
tion  of  him  ;  and  when  the  phrase  had  been  thus 
prominently  applied  to  the  personal  Messiah,  it  would 
at  least  tend  to  suggest  him  in  circles  where  this  type 

1  E.  A.  Abbott,  The  Message  of  the  Son  of  Man.  The  view  adopted 
in  this  chapter  is  substantially  that  taken  by  Dr  Abbott,  though  I 
cannot  follow  him  in  all  his  applications.  For  the  more  technical 
linguistic  problems  connected  with  the  subject,  reference  may  be  made 
to  Dalman,  The  Words  of  Jesus,  p.  234  ff.,  or  to  Dr  Driver’s  article  in 
Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  iv.  p.  579  ff. 

2  A  parallel  conception  of  the  Messiah  as  “the  man”  is  found  in 
the  Apocalypse  of  Ezra,  xiii.  This  is  later  than  the  time  of  Christ  and 
the  writing  of  the  Gospels.  But  its  use  here  is  good  evidence  that  the 
term  was  current  in  apocalyptic  circles. 

*  Enoch,  xlvi.  The  general  character  of  the  references  to  “the  Son 
of  man  ”  may  be  seen  from  the  full  quotations  given  above  in  chap.  ix. 

276 


THE  SON  OF  MAN 


of  literature  was  familiar  ;  it  might  then  be  used  as 
a  definite  title.  But  Dalman  is  fully  justified  in  his 
view  that  “  a  regular  Jewish  name  for  the  Messiah 
never  was  formed  from  the  passage  in  question  ”  ( i.e . 

Dan  vii.).  He  holds  that  the  “  two  apocalyptic 
fragments  ”  in  Enoch  and  the  Apocalypse  of  Ezra  do 
not  justify  us  in  regarding  “  Son  of  man  ”  as  a 
current  Messianic  title.1 

The  question,  then,  is  whether  the  phrase  <c  Son  of  What  did 
man  ”  in  the  Gospels  goes  back  primarily  to  this  bySthemean 
Messianic  and  eschatological  use,  so  that  the  main  phrase  ? 
idea  would  be  of  a  heavenly  Being  who  was  to  come 
on  the  clouds  to  exercise  judgment  on  God’s  enemies 
and  the  enemies  of  the  chosen  people,  and  to  reign 
in  the  Messianic  Kingdom.  Since  the  discovery 
and  intensive  study  of  the  apocalyptic  literature  it 
has  generally  been  assumed  that  this  is  the  case.  And 
with  regard  to  certain  passages  of  the  Gospels  as  they 
stand,  the  truth  of  this  view  is  undeniable  ;  they  are 
almost  exact  quotations  from  Enoch ;  e.g.  Matt. 

XXV.  31. 

But  here,  as  elsewhere,  we  have  to  consider  whether 

\ 

this  represents  the  thought  of  Christ  himself.  It  is 
at  least  a  possible  hypothesis  that  ho  used  the  term  in 
the  sense  in  which  it  occurs  in  Psa.  viii.  and  in  Ezekiel, 
referring  to  himself  as  the  representative  man,  the  one 
who  by  his  nearness  to  God  realized  completely  His 
purpose  for  mankind  in  general.  If  so,  it  would 
almost  inevitably  happen  that  in  the  process  of  em¬ 
phasizing  the  eschatological  side,  which  we  hold  to 
have  gone  on  in  the  growth  of  the  Gospel  tradition, 
his  use  of  the  phrase  would  have  been  unconsciously 

1  Dalman,  Words  of  Jesus,  p.  248. 

277 


Christ’s  use 
derived 
from 
Psa.  viii. 


/'fc/Vviv  u*-' . p\ 

THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 

modified  so  as  to  bring  it  into  closer  relation  to  the 
apocalyptic  usage. 

There  are  several  indications  in  favour  of  this  view  : 

1.  The  majority  of  the  cases  in  which  the  term 
occurs  in  the  Gospels,  including  the  earliest  cases 
(e.g.  Mark  ii.  io,  28  ;  viii.  31),  do  not  in  any  way 
suggest  apocalyptic  ideas,  but  seem  rather  to  stand  for 
man  at  his  best.1  Many  critics,  in  fact,  hold  that  in 
the  first  two  of  these  passages  “  Son  of  man  ”  has  been 
wrongly  substituted  for  an  original  “  man.”  But 
this  is  only  because  they  do  not  fit  in  with  the  supposed 
Messianic  and  eschatological  meaning. 

2.  We  can  on  these  same  lines  go  some  way  towards 
explaining  the  very  curious  way  in  which  the  expression 
is  used  as  a  kind  of  substitute  for  the  first  person. 
Though  it  includes  the  speaker,  and  in  fact  refers 
primarily  to  him,  it  is  not  just  a  periphrasis  for  “  I  ” ; 
it  seems  to  mean  himself  as  the  representative  of 
mankind ;  with  the  suggestion  that  what  he  does 
and  suffers,  mankind  as  a  whole  must  do  and  suffer  too. 

3.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  use  of  the  term  “  Son 
of  man  ”  does  not  occasion  any  surprise  either  to  the 
disciples  or  to  the  people.  They  ask  what  right  Jesus 
has  to  forgive  sins,  not  what  right  he  has  to  speak  of 
himself  as  “  Son  of  man.”  But,  if  the  expression 
had  been  understood  to  imply  an  identification  of  the 
speaker  with  the  pre-existent  “  Son  of  man  ”  of 
Enoch ,  it  would  have  been  received  with  a  storm  of 
protest.  Clearly  it  was  susceptible  of  a  reasonable  and 
natural  interpretation,  and  this  can  only  be  found  on 
the  lines  of  the  Old  Testament  usage.  This  would 

1  Cf.  Matt.  ix.  8,  “which  had  given  such  power  unto  men,”  with  ix.  6, 
“the  Son  of  man  hath  power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins.” 

278 


THE  SON  OF  MAN 


be  at  least  as  familiar  as  the  rather  special  use  in  Enoch. 
In  our  anxiety  to  bring  out  the  newly-discovered 
influence  of  apocalyptic,1  we  must  not  forget  that  our 
Old  Testament  was  the  Jewish  Bible. 

4.  That  the  term  cannot  have  been  understood 
in  the  Enoch  sense  is  shown  by  the  matter-of-fact 
way  in  which  it  was  received ;  the  same  conclusion 
follows  from  a  consideration  of  Christ’s  own  attitude 
towards  his  Messiahship.  It  is  clear  from  the  questions 
asked  at  Caesarea  Philippi  and  by  the  High  Priest 
at  the  Trial  that  he  did  not  speak  of  his  Messiahship 
in  public  at  any  time,  or  even  to  the  disciples  before 
Caesarea  Philippi.  But  if  Son  of  man  was  really 
equivalent  to  Messiah,  as  it  is  in  the  apocalyptic  use, 
his  adoption  of  the  term  must  have  at  once  identified 
him  as  Messiah.  Hence  those  wffio  insist  on  the 
identification  are  compelled  in  one  way  or  another  to 
eliminate  both  the  early  and  the  public  uses  of  the 
term.  If  however,  as  we  suggest,  the  term  was  associ¬ 
ated  rather  with  the  Old  Testament  the  difficulty 
disappears.  Christ  in  speaking  of  himself  as  Son 
of  man  would  be  understood  as  summing  up  in  his 
own  person  the  true  ideal  not  only  of  Israel  but  of 
humanity,  not  as  identifying  himself  with  the  Heavenly 
Being  who  was  to  appear  as  Judge  on  the  clouds. 

In  Psa.  viii.  we  have  three  ideas  associated  with 
“  man  ”  or  “  the  Son  of  man  ” — humiliation,  authority 
over  the  lower  creation,  and  subsequent  exaltation. 
These  are  precisely  the  three  main  ideas  associated 
with  “  Son  of  man  ”  in  the  Gospels.  The  first  ex- 

1  The  work  done  by  Dr  Charles  in  this  connection  will  remain  one 
of  the  great  achievements  of  English  scholarship,  but  he  cannot  be 
held  responsible  for  the  use  made  of  the  materials  which  he  has  placed 
at  the  disposal  of  students. 


279 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


amples  of  its  use  emphasize  authority  to  forgive  sins 
and  lordship  over  the  Sabbath  ;  the  thought  of  humilia¬ 
tion  and  suffering  is  frequent  (“  hath  not  where  to  la y 
his  head  ”  and  the  predictions  of  the  Passion) ;  and  so, 
The  intru-  in  one  form  or  another,  is  that  of  exaltation.  It  is 
apocalyptic  *n  ^ast  connecti°n  that  the  passages  as  they  stand 
idea.  suggest  Enoch ,  but  it  is  also  just  at  this  point  that  the 
turn  which  emphasized  the  suggestion  would  natur¬ 
ally  be  given  by  Jewish  reporters.  If  Christ  had 
spoken  of  the  exaltation  which  was  to  follow  his 
humiliation,  when  the  Son  of  man  was  to  be  “  crowned 
with  glory  and  worship,5’  when  true  humanity  was  to 
triumph  by  the  power  of  the  divine  love,  the  Beast 
to  be  crushed  and  the  Kingdom  established,  and 
had  done  this  in  general  terms,  partly  derived  from 
Daniel,1  a  very  slight  change  would  assimilate  these 
sayings  to  Enoch  and  introduce  the  idea  of  an  actual 
coming  on  the  clouds.  What  was  figurative,  poetical 
and  inward  would  become  literal  and  external.  The 
change  in  wording  might  be  very  slight,  but  it  was  a 
change  which  made  all  the  difference. 

And  it  is  clear  that  this  change  would  take  effect 
very  quickly  after  the  Resurrection,  indeed  as  soon  as 
Jesus  was  recognized  as  the  Lord  of  the  world,  the 
conqueror  over  death,  and  we  find  it,  in  fact,  in  the 
early  speeches  of  Peter  in  Acts.  His  speedy  return  in 
triumph  is  expected,  and  the  expectation  is  clothed  in 
the  language  of  eschatology  (ii.  17  ff.  ;  iii.  19  ff .), 

1  Dalman  sums  up  his  discussion  of  the  term  in  these  words : 
“Jesus  called  himself  [Son  of  man]  not  indeed  as  the  ‘lowly  one,'  but 
as  that  member  of  the  human  race  ( Menschenkind )  in  his  own  nature 
impotent,  whom  God  will  make  Lord  of  the  world ;  and  it  is  very  probable 
that  Jesus  found  another  reference  to  the  Son  of  man  of  Dan.  vii.  in 
the  verses  of  Psa.  viii.  5“  ( Words  of  Jesus,  p.  265;  the  italics  are  in 
the  original). 


280 


THE  SON  OF  MAN 


though  the  term  “  Son  of  man  ”  is  not  used  except  by 
Stephen  in  Acts  vii.  56.  Any  sayings  of  Jesus  which 
seemed  to  endorse  this  would  quickly  undergo  the 
necessary  modification.  The  marvel  is  not  that  they 
have  been  altered  in  this  way,  but  that  they  have  been 
altered  so  little. 

It  is  important  in  this  connection  to  consider  the 
predictions  of  the  Passion  and  the  Resurrection.1 
No  doubt  there  is  some  uncertainty  as  to  the  exact 
words  used,  and  it  is  probable  that  they  have  been  to 
some  extent  modified  in  the  light  of  after  events.  But 
the  point  is  that,  if  the  thought  of  an  immediate 
coming  to  judgment  was  central  in  the  mind  of  Jesus, 
we  should  expect  that  the  climax  of  the  predictions 
would  be  the  return  on  the  clouds ;  instead  of  this 
it  is  always  the  Resurrection.2  If  the  return  had  been 
mentioned  by  Jesus  in  these  sayings,  it  would  certainly 
not  have  dropped  out  in  the  tradition.  And  if  it  was 
not  mentioned  in  these  emphatic  and  repeated  utter¬ 
ances,  in  which  above  all  he  set  himself  to  open  the 
eyes  of  the  disciples  to  his  future  destiny,  it  is  hard  to 
believe  that  it  had  any  place  in  his  thought. 

We  pass  on  to  consider  the  chief  Gospel  passages 
in  which  the  Son  of  man  figures  in  what  appears  to  be 
the  Enoch  sense.  We  shall  find  good  evidence,  in 
comparing  one  Gospel  with  another,  that  the  apoca¬ 
lyptic  element  has  been  heightened.  And  we  must 
bear  in  mind  the  possibility  that  the  process  may  have 


Predictions 
of  the 
Passion  and 
Resurrec¬ 
tion. 


Passages  in 
which  Son 
of  man  is 
used  in  the 
apocalyptic 
sense. 


1  Mark  viii.  31  ;  ix.  12  ;  ix.  31  ;  x.  32,  and  parallels. 

*  It  is  noteworthy  that  Schweitzer  regards  these  predictions  as 
altogether  unhistorical ;  they  cannot,  in  fact,  be  harmonized  with  the 
eschatological  theory.  Jesus  always  speaks  of  himself  in  this  connection 
as  Son  of  man,  and  yet  never  introduces  the  idea  of  his  coming  on  the 
clouds  at  the  very  point  where  we  should  expect  it.  On  Luke  xvii.  25 
see  below,  p.  286. 


28l 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


begun  still  earlier,  in  the  oral  tradition  before  Mark 
or  even  Q  were  written,  and  that  the  presence  of  the 
apocalyptic  elements — the  visible  coming  on  the  clouds 
and  the  judgment  on  enemies — is  due  to  an  early 
misunderstanding  of  sayings  cast  in  a  different  mould. 
For  if  the  tendency  to  introduce  eschatology  was  strong 
enough  to  affect  the  written  record  of  the  teaching, 
it  would  operate  still  more  readily  while  that  teaching 
was  still  being  handed  on  by  word  of  mouth. 


Mark  viii.  38  ff. 

(a)  For  whosoever  shall 
be  ashamed  of  me  and 
of  my  words  in  this 
adulterous  and  sinful 
generation,  the  Son  of 
man  shall  be  ashamed  of 
him  when  he  cometh 
in  the  glory  of  his 
Father  with  the  holy 
angels. 

(1 b )  And  he  said  unto 
them.  Verily  I  say  unto 
you,  There  be  some  here 
of  them  that  stand  by 
which  shall  in  no  wise 
taste  of  death  till  they 
see  the  kingdom  of  God 
come  with  power. 


Matt.  xvi.  27  ff. 

For  the  Son  of  man 
shall  come  in  the  glory 
of  his  Father  with  his 
angels  ;  and  then  shall 
he  render  to  every  man 
according  to  his  deeds. 


Verily  I  say  unto  you. 
There  be  some  of  them 
that  stand  here  which 
shall  in  no  wise  taste  of 
death  till  they  see  the 
Son  of  man  coming  in 
his  kingdom. 


Luke  ix.  26  ff. 

For  whosoever  shall 
be  ashamed  of  me  and  of 
my  words,  of  him  shall 
the  Son  of  man  be 
ashamed  when  he  com¬ 
eth  in  his  own  glory 
and  the  glory  of  the 
Father  and  of  the  holy 
angels. 


But  I  tell  you  of  a 
truth.  There  be  some  of 
them  that  stand  here 
which  shall  in  no  wise 
taste  of  death  till  they 
see  the  kingdom  of  God. 


This  passage  in  each  of  the  three  Gospels  comprises 
two  sayings.  We  shall  deal  with  the  two  separately. 

With  the  first  saying,  which  has  just  been  quoted 
in  its  Marcan  form,  we  must  compare  another  which 
is  not  in  Mark  and  seems  to  have  come  from  Q  : 


Matt.  x.  32,  33. 

Everyone  therefore  who  shall  con¬ 
fess  me  before  men,  him  will  I  also 
confess  before  my  Father  which  is  in 
heaven.  But  whosoever  shall  deny 
me  before  men,  him  will  I  also  deny 
before  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven. 


Luke  xii.  8,  9. 

Everyone  who  shall  confess  me 
before  men,  him  shall  the  Son  of 
man  also  confess  before  the  angels 
of  God  :  but  he  that  denieth  me  in 
the  presence  of  men  shall  be  denied 
in  the  presence  of  the  angels  of  God. 


282 


THE  SON  OF  MAN 


We  have,  then,  five  variants  of  a  single  saying 
about  confessing,  or  not  being  ashamed  of,  Christ — 
three  being  of  the  Marcan  version  and  two  from  Q. 
Of  these  it  is  generally  held  that  the  Q  form  is  the 
original.1  We  note  at  once  that  this  does  not  refer  to 
the  end  of  the  world.  But  in  Markviii.  and  Luke  ix. 
the  saying  is  brought  into  relation  with  the  coming 
of  the  Son  of  man,  who,  however,  appears  as  witness 
rather  than  as  judge.  Matthew  gives  the  Q  saying 
about  denial  in  x.  32,  and  in  xvi.  28  he  makes  the 
Marcan  saying  entirely  eschatological.  He  omits  in 
this  context  the  whole  idea  of  confessing  Christ  before 
men,  and  substitutes  the  explicit  statement  of  a 
retributive  judgment  exercised  by  the  Son  of  man, 
who  appears  as  judge,  not  as  witness  :  “  Then  shall  he 
render  to  every  man  according  to  his  works.”  The 
addition  is  an  almost  exact  quotation  from  Psa.  lxii.  12, 
and  the  idea  of  a  judgment  according  to  works  is 
common  in  apocalyptic.  We  find,  then,  three  stages 
in  the  tradition — a  simple  and  non-eschatological 
Q  saying,  a  Marcan  and  Lucan  version  where  it  is 
connected  with  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  a 
developed  eschatological  version  in  Matt.  xvi. 

To  pass  to  the  second  half  of  the  Marcan  saying 
quoted  above  (“  there  be  some  of  them  which  stand 
here,  etc.”),  Mark  ix.  1  has  “  see  the  Kingdom  of 
God  come  with  power.”  Here,  though  the  wording 
is  vaguely  apocalyptic,  the  reference  might  be  to  the 
visible  triumph  of  Christ  and  the  cause  for  which  he 
stood,  however  brought  about.  This  applies  still 
more  strongly  to  Luke’s  “  see  the  Kingdom  of  God.” 


Sayings 
about  con¬ 
fessing 
Christ. 


» 

Till  they 
see  the 
Kingdom  of 
God.” 


1  For  a  discussion  of  these  passages  see  Streeter  in  Oxford  Studies 
in  the  Synoptic  Problem,  p.  428. 

283 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


But  Matthew  makes  it  refer  definitely  to  a  visible 
coming,  “  till  they  see  the  Son  of  man  coming  in 
his  Kingdom.”  Once  more  we  can  trace  the  process 
by  which  an  eschatological  element  was  introduced. 

(3)  Matt.  x.  23  :  “  But  when  they  persecute  you  in 

Son  of  man  this  city,  ^ee  into  the  next  :  for  verily  I  say  unto  you, 
become.”  Ye  shall  not  have  gone  through  the  cities  of  Israel 
till  the  Son  of  man  be  come.” 

This  is  from  any  point  of  view  a  peculiarly  difficult 
passage.  It  is  sometimes  assigned  to  Q,  but  it  is 
very  doubtful  whether  this  ascription  is  justified. 
The  sequence  of  ideas — warnings  of  persecution,  being 
“  hated  of  all  men,”  and  the  promise,  “he  that  endureth 
to  the  end  shall  be  saved  ” — occurs  with  close  verbal 
agreement  four  times  in  the  Gospels  :  (1)  Matt.  x. 
17-22;  (2)  Matt.  xxiv.  9- 13;  (3)  Mark  xiii.  11-13; 
(4)  Luke  xxi.  12-19  (^ere?  however,  Luke  substitutes 
for  the  injunction  to  endure  to  the  end  a  corresponding 
climax,  “  in  your  patience  possess  ye  your  souls  ”). 
Now,  in  none  of  the  other  three  passages  do  we  find 
the  words  of  Matt.  x.  23,  “  Ye  shall  not  have  gone 
through  the  cities  of  Israel,  etc.”  The  charge  to 
endure  to  the  end  in  Matt.  x.  22  forms  a  complete 
close  to  the  section,  as  it  does  in  the  parallel  passages, 
and  verse  23,  with  which  we  are  concerned,  reads  like  an 
afterthought  added  by  the  editor,  or  derived  by  him 
from  some  other  source. 

What,  then,  do  these  words  mean,  and  were  they 
spoken  by  Jesus  ?  They  now  form  part  of  the  charge 
to  the  Twelve  on  their  first  mission,  and,  if  original,  we 
have  two  possibilities  :  (1)  If  they  are  correctly  reported 
and  taken  in  their  obvious  sense,  we  are  forced  to  the 
view  of  Schweitzer,  that  Jesus  at  this  period  of  his 

284 


THE  SON  OF  MAN 


ministry  expected  his  manifestation  on  the  clouds 
within  a  few  weeks.1  But,  as  we  have  seen  throughout 
these  chapters,  the  converging  arguments  against  any 
such  view  are  decisive,  and  we  cannot  attribute  to 
Jesus  so  incongruous  a  belief  on  the  strength  of  a  single 
passage  occurring  in  only  one  Gospel. 

(2)  It  is  possible,  though  not  very  likely,  that  Jesus 
may  have  spoken  of  something  which  was  to  happen 
very  quickly,  presumably  his  death,  and  that  an  eschato¬ 
logical  colouring  has  been  given  to  his  words. 

(3)  More  probable  is  the  view,  which  is  in  fact 
adopted  by  the  majority  of  critics,  that  the  saying 
was  not  spoken  by  Jesus  at  all,  but  that  it  reflects 
the  policy  of  a  section  of  the  Church  at  a  later  period. 
It  justifies  flight  from  persecution,  and  argues  that 
as  the  time  is  so  short  it  is  better  to  confine  evangel¬ 
istic  effort  to  the  Jews  rather  than  to  go  far  afield 
to  the  Gentiles,  as  did  Paul  and  his  followers.2  In 
this  case  the  saying  is  really  eschatological,  but  it  is 
not  Christ’s,  and,  as  we  have  seen,  a  comparison  with 
similar  passages  in  the  other  Gospels  confirms  this 
view. 


1  Schweitzer,  in  fact,  rightly  regards  the  verse  as  the  pivot  of  his 
whole  theory. 

2  Cf.  the  words  earlier  in  the  chapter,  “  Go  not  into  the  way  of  the 
Gentiles,  and  enter  not  into  any  city  of  the  Samaritans  ”  (x.  5).  These 
are  also  peculiar  to  Matthew.  It  is  true  that  we  find  the  Gentile 
mission  insisted  on  in  this  Gospel  (e.g.  Matt,  xxviii.  19) ;  the  editor 
seems  to  have  been  content  to  leave  the  two  views  side  by  side. 
Perhaps  he  regarded  the  earlier  limitation  as  revoked  by  the  command 
given  after  the  Resurrection.  But  that  the  inconsistency  must  not  be 
attributed  to  Jesus  himself  is  recognized  by  so  moderate  a  critic  as 
Dr  Stanton,  who  writes,  with  reference  to  Matt.  x.  5,  6,  23,  “  In  spite, 
however,  of  their  emanating  from  the  original  home  of  Christianity, 
it  is  difficult  in  view  of  other  sayings  of  Jesus  and  the  general  tenor 
of  his  teaching  to  believe  that  they  accurately  represent  the  mind  of 
the  Master  ”  {The  Gospels  as  Historical  Documents,  ii.  p.  330). 

285 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 

(4)  f  Luke  xvii.  22-37  :  cc  Ye  shall  desire  to  see  one  of  tile 
the  Son  of  days  of  the  Son  of  man  and  ye  shall  not  see  it.  .  .  . 
SaSieVl11  bc  For  as  the  lightning,  when  it  lighteneth  out  of  the 
lightning.  0ne  part  under  the  heaven,  shineth  unto  the  other 
part  under  heaven  ;  so  shall  the  Son  of  man  be  in 
his  day  But  first  must  he  suffer  many  things,  and 
be  rejected  of  this  generation.  And  as  it  came  to 
pass  in  the  days  of  Noah,  even  so  shall  it  be  also  in 
the  days  of  the  Son  of  man,  etc.” 

This  passage  occurs  in  a  shorter  form  in  the  eschato¬ 
logical  discourse  of  Matt,  xxiv.,  and  probably  came  in 
substance  from  Q.  The  words  in  Luke  xvii  25 
(“  first  must  he  suffer,  etc.”)  suggest  a  personal  eschato¬ 
logical  coming ;  the  Son  of  man  must  die  and  then 
return.  But  though,  as  we  have  seen,  we  do  not 
question  the  predictions  of  death  as  a  whole,  this 
particular  prediction  reads  very  much  like  a  note 
added  to  the  passage.  The  section  is  otherwise 
studiously  vague  in  its  wording  :  “  so  shall  the  Son  of 
man  be  in  his  day  ”  ;  “  the  days  of  the  Son  of  man.” 
The  most  definite  expression  is  verse  30  :  “  After  the 
same  manner  shall  it  be  in  the  day  that  the  Son  of 
man  is  revealed.” 

But,  even  allowing  for  this  vagueness  and  omitting 
verse  25,  the  passage  is  not  free  from  difficulty.  It 
begins  with  the  statement  that  many  shall  desire  to 
see  one  of  the  days  of  the  Son  of  man,  which  reminds  us 
of  the  saying  in  Mark  ii.  about  the  Bridegroom  being 
taken  away.  But  it  goes  on  to  refer  to  the  Flood  and 
the  destruction  of  Sodom,  describing  a  crisis  where 
one  is  taken  and  another  left.  This  may  naturally 
be  understood  of  the  time  of  horror  which  was  associ¬ 
ated  with  the  fall  of  Jerusalem — hardly  an  event 

286 


THE  SON  OF  MAN 


which  anyone  would  desire  to  see.1  As  already  re¬ 
marked,  the  section  seems  to  have  come  from  Q,  and 
it  would  appear  to  be  one  of  the  few  passages  in  that 
source  in  which  the  tendency  to  introduce  an  eschato¬ 
logical  colouring  already  shows  itself.  The  fall  of 
Jerusalem,  which  probably  was  anticipated  by  Christ, 
is  identified  with  one  of  the  days  of  the  Son  of  man, 
precisely  as  the  prophets  see  in  the  national  disasters  of 
their  time  a  “  day  of  the  Lord.”  Whether  the  identi¬ 
fication  was  made  by  Jesus  must  remain  doubtful.  In 
the  preceding  section  he  has  stated  quite  definitely 
that  the  Kingdom  does  not  come  with  observation  2 ; 
it  is  not  probable  that  he  went  on  at  once  to  speak  of 
his  own  coming,  or  of  “  a  day  of  the  Son  of  man,”  as 
a  visible  event.  Matthew,  as  has  been  pointed  out, 
combines  part  of  this  section  with  Mark’s  eschato¬ 
logical  discourse,  which  we  shall  consider  next.  The 
same  process  seems  to  have  been  at  work  in  both  cases  ; 
sayings  of  Jesus  about  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  and  com¬ 
mands  to  watch  have  been  given  an  eschatological 
setting,  though  in  this  passage  that  setting  is  com¬ 
paratively  vague  and  indefinite. 

Mark  xiii.  ;  Matt.  xxiv.  ;  Luke  xxi.  and  xvii.  20  ff. 

In  this  section,3  known  as  “  the  Little  Apocalypse,” 

1  The  passage  is  not  really  parallel  to  the  well  -  known  section, 
Amos  v.  18  :  “Woe  unto  you  that  desire  the  day  of  the  Lord !  where¬ 
fore  would  ye  have  the  day  of  the  Lord  ?  it  is  darkness  and  not  light.” 
For  Jesus  does  not  say,  “  Ye  shall  desire  to  see  one  of  the  days  of  the 
Son  of  man,  and  when  it  comes  ye  shall  wish  it  had  not  done  so,”  but, 
“ye  shall  desire,  and  shall  not  see  it.”  He  then  goes  on  to  speak  of 
something  else  which  will  come  and  is  not  desirable.  The  identification 
of  this  disaster  with  “a  day  of  the  Son  of  man  ”  contradicts  verse  22  ; 
he  is  more  likely  to  have  spoken  of  it  in  the  terms  of  Luke  xxii.  53, 
“  this  is  your  hour  and  the  power  of  darkness.” 

2  See  p.  264. 

3  The  chapters  are  too  long  to  quote  in  full ;  the  reader  is  advised 
to  refer  to  them  in  a  synopsis  of  the  Gospels  where  they  are  printed  in 

287 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


(5)  we  have  a  clear  case  of  the  heightening  in  Matthew  of 

xnc  sziCuit  ^  ^ 

eschato-  the  apocalyptic  element.  The  introductory  question 
discourse.  'm  Mark  and  Luke  refers  solely  to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  : 

“Tell  us  when  shall  these  things  be  and  what  is  the  sign 
when  all  these  things  shall  be  accomplished  ?  ”  Mat¬ 
thew  has  “  Tell  us  when  shall  these  things  be  and  what 
is  the  sign  of  thy  coming  and  of  the  end  of  the  age  ?  ”  1 
In  verse  29  he  inserts  the  significant  “immediately”  be¬ 
fore  Mark’s  “  after  these  things  ”  in  order  to  bring  out 
the  idea  of  the  nearness  of  the  Coming.  Generally, 
though  the  closeness  of  the  verbal  agreement  shows 
that  Matthew  is  dependent  on  Mark,  he  is  fuller, 
and  his  additional  matter  all  has  the  same  tendency 
to  heighten  the  eschatological  colouring  ;  e.g.  verse  30, 
“  the  sign  of  the  Son  of  man  ”  in  heaven,  and  verse  31, 
the  great  trumpet.  Luke  generally  follows  Mark 
closely,  except  that  he  makes  the  references  to  the 
fall  of  Jerusalem  more  intelligible  to  Gentiles.*  That 
part  of  his  material  which  is  not  from  Mark  but  from 
Q  he  places  in  chapter  xvii.  ;  Matthew  has  welded 
both  sources  together  in  the  one  chapter,  xxiv.3 

The  greater  part  of  the  discourse  admittedly  refers 
to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  with  warnings  of  persecution 
(Mark  xiii.  9-13)  and  of  falling  away  (verses  21-23). 
But  at  verse  24  Mark  passes  on  to  speak  quite  clearly, 

parallel  columns,  and  to  mark  for  himself  Matthew’s  expansions  of 
Mark. 

1  The  word  here  used  for  coming — Parousia — became  the  technical 
term  for  the  Second  Coming  of  Christ ;  it,  however,  occurs  in  the 
Gospels  only  in  Matt.  xxiv.  Similarly  the  eschatological  phrase  “end 
of  the  age  ”  is  found  five  times  in  Matthew,  and  not  elsewhere. 

2  See  further,  p.  294. 

3  In  the  same  way  Matthew’s  treatment  of  the  Q  section  is  more 
eschatological  than  Luke’s ;  e.g.  he  introduces  the  technical  Parousia 
in  verses  27,  37,  39.  Contrast  Luke  xvii.  21-35,  on  which  see  above, 
p.  286. 


288 


THE  SON  OF  MAN 


though  comparatively  briefly,  of  the  Coming  in  close 
connection  with  this.  He  closes  with  the  parable 
of  the  Fig  Tree,  and  with  the  warning  that  the  day 
and  the  hour,  though  in  that  generation,  are  unknown. 
This  section,  as  it  stands  in  Mark,  must  refer,  not  to 
the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  but  to  the  End  of  the  world, 
which  has  just  been  clearly  mentioned. 

A  full  discussion  of  this  chapter  and  its  parallels 
would  be  long  and  complicated,1  but  it  is  widely 
recognized  that  it  does  not  in  its  present  form,  even 
in  Mark,  represent  an  actual  discourse  of  Christ.  It 
is  introduced  as  spoken  in  private ;  i.e.  there  was  a 
time  when  it  was  unknown  to  the  Church,  a  possible 
inference  being  that  it  was  not  part  of  the  original 
teaching  of  Christ 2 ;  the  extended  use  of  apocalyptic 
imagery  in  a  relatively  crude  form  has  no  parallel  in 
the  rest  of  the  Gospels ;  and  nowhere  else  in  Mark  do 
we  find  a  discourse  of  thirty-seven  verses,  a  fact  which 
suggests  that  he  obtained  it  from  some  special  source. 
Probably  a  little  Apocalypse,  written  somewhere  about 
70  a.d.,  referring  to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  and  the  Second 
Coming,  has  been  combined  with  brief  authentic 
sayings,  vaguely  understood,  about  the  former  event 
and  with  general  commands  to  watch.  Mark  xiii. 
30-32  (“  This  generation  shall  not  pass  away,  etc.”) 
may  well  be  genuine ;  in  its  original  context  it  would 
apply  to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  though,  as  we  have  seen, 
it  must  in  its  present  setting  refer  to  the  Parousia.  At 
any  rate  it  is  rash  to  use  this  chapter,  even  in  its  Marcan 
form,  as  evidence  that  Christ  adopted  apocalyptic 

1  See  e.g.  the  discussion  by  Streeter  in  Oxford  Studies  of  the  Synoptic 
Problem,  p.  179  fl. 

2  Cf.  the  explanation  of  the  parable  of  the  Tares  ;  see  above,  p.  241. 

289  T 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


ideas ;  and  if  it  is  set  aside,  many  other  passages, 
which,  if  interpreted  in  its  light,  become  eschato¬ 
logical,  are  susceptible  of  quite  a  different  colouring. 


(6) 

The  reply 
to  the  High 
Priest  at 

the  Trial. 


Mark  xiv.  62. 

Ye  shall  see  the  Son 
of  man  sitting  at  the 
right  hand  of  power 
and  coming  with  the 
clouds  of  heaven. 


Matt.  xxvi.  64. 

Henceforth  ye  shall 
see  the  Son  of  man 
sitting  at  the  right  hand 
of  power  and  coming  on 
the  clouds  of  heaven. 


Luke  xxii.  69. 

But  from  hence¬ 
forth  shall  the  Son 
of  man  be  seated  at 
the  right  hand  of  the 
power  of  God. 


The  exact  wording  varies,  and  Luke  says  nothing  of 
the  coming  on  the  clouds.1  It  is  never  easy  for 
bystanders  to  recall  the  precise  words  spoken  at  a 
time  of  great  tension.  They  must  have  been  reported 
by  those  who  at  the  time  were  our  Lord’s  enemies, 
and,  since  they  formed  the  ground  of  his  condemna¬ 
tion,  they  would  naturally  make  them  as  extreme  and 
startling  as  possible.  It  is  clear  that  our  Lord  used 
language  which  recalled  Dan.  vii.,  and  publicly  identi¬ 
fied  himself  for  the  first  time  with  the  Messiah,  bringing 
the  Son  of  man  phrase  into  relation  with  it.  But 
whether  he  spoke  of  a  permanent  sitting  at  the  right 
hand  of  God,  or  used  vague  apocalyptic  language  in 
a  deeper  spiritualized  sense,  it  is  not  easy  to  determine. 

The  record  of  the  trials  as  a  whole  has  the  stamp  of 
authenticity ;  probably  some  of  the  servants  or 
soldiers  present,  if  not  some  of  the  judges  (we  think 
of  Joseph  of  Arimathea  and  of  the  company  of  priests 
who  became  obedient  to  the  faith),  became  Christians 
and  recorded  their  recollections.  This  may  be  said 
against  those  who,  like  Loisy,  hold  that  we  know  nothing 
of  what  really  happened  on  this  occasion.  But  this 
does  not  justify  us  in  building  too  much  on  the  exact 

1  On  the  point  that  Luke’s  version  of  the  saying  is  not  a  modifica¬ 
tion  of  Mark,  but  comes  from  an  independent  source,  see  below,  p.  294. 

29O 


THE  SON  OF  MAN 


wording  of  a  saying,  spoken  in  another  language,  and 
recorded  in  three  different  forms  by  our  only  authori¬ 
ties.  We  cannot  assume  that  any  one  of  them  is 
absolutely  accurate.1 

From  passages  already  considered  it  will  be  seen  Christ  as 
that  the  conception  of  Christ  as  a  judge  who  wilHudge* 
reward  and  punish  at  the  last  day  is  exclusively  Mat- 
thean  ;  it  is  found  in  Matt.  xiii.  41  (see  p.  241)  ; 
xvi.  27  (see  p.  283)  ;  and  xxv.  31  (see  p.  248).  None 
of  these  passages  can  be  regarded  as  authentic  in  their 
present  form.  It  occurs  also  in  Matt.  xix.  28,  “  In 
the  regeneration  when  the  Son  of  man  shall  sit  on 
the  throne  of  his  glory,  ye  also  shall  sit,”  etc.  This 
is  parallel  to  Luke  xxii.  28-30,  where  the  words 
“  when  the  Son  of  man  shall  sit  .  .  .  glory  ”  are 
not  found.  To  quote  Dr  Stanton  2  once  more,  “  The 
idea  of  the  Judgeship  of  Christ,  which  is  plainly  ex¬ 
pressed  in  the  former  [Matt.  xvi.  27,  28],  and  implied 
in  the  latter  [xix.  28],  of  these  passages  in  St  Matthew, 
is  not  elsewhere  set  forth  in  St  Mark  or  St  Luke.” 

In  Matt.  vii.  22  (“  Many  shall  say  to  me  in  that  day 
.  .  .  then  shall  I  confess  to  them,  I  never  knew  you  ”) 
we  find  the  ideas  of  acceptance  and  rejection  stated  in 
comparatively  vague  language,  which  may  be  compared 
with  the  saying  about  confessing  Christ  before  men. 

In  the  Lucan  version  (xiii.  25  ff.)  “  in  that  day  ”  is 
not  found,  and  its  place  is  taken  by  a  parabolic  saying 
about  the  shutting  of  the  door.  With  reference  to 
this  and  other  passages  of  the  same  type,  Dr  Stanton  3 
argues  that,  in  view  of  the  way  Matthew  has  modified 

1  The  use  of  the  term  “power”  as  a  periphrasis  for  “God”  is 
contrary  to  the  general  habit  of  Jesus ;  see  above,  p.  233. 

2  The  Gospels  as  Historical  Documents,  ii.  p.  351. 

3  Op.  cit.,  p.  352  ff. 


29I 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Mark,  it  seems  probable  that  the  peculiar  features  of 
the  First  Evangelist,  such  as  “  shall  enter  into  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven  ”  in  the  eschatological  sense 
(Matt.  vii.  21  ;  contrast  Luke  vi.  46),  or  the  “  in 
that  da y  ”  of  vii.  22,  were  introduced  by  him  “  in 
consequence  of  his  own  sense  of  what  was  fitting.” 
The  Evangelist  would  agree  with  the  Rabbi 1  who 
taught  that,  if  Israel  were  worthy,  the  Messiah  would 
come  with  the  clouds  of  heaven,  but,  if  unworthy, 
he  would  come  riding  upon  the  ass.  Jesus  himself 
had  a  different  standard  of  greatness  and  of  power, 
which  even  his  followers  have  been  very  slow  to  learn. 

Summary.  To  sum  up  our  discussion  :  it  is  clear  that  the 
passages  which  lend  colour  to  the  belief  that  Jesus 
spoke  of  the  approaching  end  of  the  world  and  of  his 
own  return  as  judge  on  the  clouds  are  passages  con¬ 
nected  with  the  Son  of  man  rather  than  with  the 
Kingdom.  But,  even  so,  the  sayings  which  demand  this 
interpretation  are  few  in  number,  and  may  be  explained 
on  critical  grounds  as  additions  to,  or  modifications 
of,  what  he  actually  taught.  And  what  was  said  in 
discussing  the  Kingdom  passages  holds  good  here  also  : 
there  are  a  larger  number  of  neutral  passages  which 
are  capable  of  being  understood  in  an  eschatological 
sense,  if  the  eschatological  outlook  has  already  been 
attributed  to  Jesus  on  the  strength  of  the  few  sayings, 
of  doubtful  authenticity,  which  imply  it.  But  if 
these  are  eliminated,  the  neutral  sayings  are  at  once 
susceptible  of  a  non-eschatological  interpretation. 

Jesus,  as  we  have  urged,  speaks  of  himself  as  Son  of 
man  in  the  Old  Testament  sense  and  refers  in  general 

1  See  Dalman,  The  Words  of  Jesus,  p.  245. 

292 


THE  SON  OF  MAN 


and  figurative  language  to  the  coming  vindication  of 
himself,  of  his  teaching,  and  of  the  purpose  of  God.  In 
particular,  he  sees  in  the  national  disaster  of  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem  an  unmistakable  manifestation  of  the  moral 
law  which  rules  the  world  of  men,  the  inevitable  doom 
upon  national  blindness  and  folly. 

We  have  constantly  contrasted  the  eschatological  tone  Luke  or 
of  Matthew  with  the  more  sober  and  spiritual  version  Matthew  ? 
of  the  sayings  found  in  Luke.  If  it  were  consistent 
with  the  religious  genius  of  Christ,  it  might  appear 
open  to  us  to  argue  that  Matthew  is  original  and  that 
Luke  has  modified  the  teaching.  In  reply  to  this 
position  we  would  urge  the  following  considerations  : 

(i)  In  the  early  speeches  of  Acts,  Luke  has  retained  the 
eschatological  elements.1  He  was  certainly  using  here  a 
source  of  some  kind,  and  the  conclusion  is  that,  when  he 
found  eschatology  in  his  source,  he  did  not  set  himself 
to  eliminate  it,  but  preserved  it  faithfully.  We  have, 
in  fact,  in  Acts  i.  n  a  most  emphatic  statement  of 
the  visible  Second  Coming:  “  This  Jesus,  which  was 
received  up  from  you  into  heaven,  shall  so  come  as  ye 
beheld  him  going  into  heaven.”  He  also  introduces  into 
the  speeches  of  Paul  clear  references  to  the  judgment 
to  be  conducted  by  Christ  (Acts  xvii.  31  ;  xxiv.  25). 

It  is  indeed  commonly  assumed  that  he  has  modified  Does  Luke 
Mark’s  eschatology,  but  this  does  not  appear  to  be  Mark^s°Wn 

the  case  It  is  true  that  in  ix.  27  he  does  slightly  eschato- 

0  J  ? 

tone  down  Mark’s  “  see  the  Kingdom  of  God  come 
with  power  ”  by  the  omission  of  the  last  two  words.2 
But  otherwise  he  does  not  materially  alter  the  small 
amount  of  eschatology  he  found  in  Mark  ;  cf.  Mark  viii. 

38  and  Luke  ix.  26  ;  Mark  xiii.  24-27  and  Luke  xxi. 

1  See  above,  p.  280.  2  See  p.  283. 


293 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


25-28  ;  Mark  xiii.  30,  31  and  Luke  xxi.  32,  33  The 
latter  passages  come  from  the  eschatological  discourse  ; 
if  Luke’s  treatment  of  its  Marcan  sections  be  examined, 
it  will  be  seen  that  he  makes  clearer  the  reference  of 
the  first  part  to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  and  in  xxi.  25 
omits  the  statement  that  the  Second  Coming  will  be 
“  in  those  days  ”  (Mark  xiii.  24),  or  “  immediately  ” 
(Matt.  xxiv.  29).  He  also  omits  the  warning  that  the 
exact  hour  is  unknown  even  to  the  Son  (Mark  xiii. 
32).  But  he  retains  the  statement  that  this  generation 
shall  not  pass  away  till  all  be  fulfilled  (xxi.  32),  and  in 
all  essentials  preserves  Mark’s  eschatology.1 

It  is,  however,  often  supposed  that  in  his  version 
of  the  reply  to  the  High  Priest  he  alters  Mark,  sub¬ 
stituting  the  idea  of  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God 
for  that  of  coming  with  the  clouds.2  But,  here 
as  elsewhere  in  the  Passion  narrative,  Luke  is  clearly 
following  a  source  of  his  own,  with  possibly  a  few 
modifications  introduced  from  Mark.  According  to 
Luke  xxii.  66  the  trial  before  the  Sanhedrin  takes 
place  in  the  morning,  not  by  night  as  in  Mark  and 
Matthew ;  Luke  omits  the  impressive  section  about 
the  failure  of  the  false  witnesses.  The  verses  immedi¬ 
ately  before  and  after  the  reply  differ  considerably 
from  Mark,  the  common  features  being  the  question 
whether  Jesus  is  the  Christ  (in  Luke  this  is  not  asked 

1  Since  this  was  written,  a  study  by  Prof.  Burkitt  of  Luke’s  use 

of  Mark  has  appeared  ( The  Beginnings  of  Christianity,  vol.  ii.).  It 
happens  that  he  takes  this  Eschatological  Discourse  as  a  test  case; 
his  conclusion  confirms  that  taken  above.  Though  the  vocabulary 
and  style  are  largely  Luke’s,  and  though  he  emphasizes  the  “psycho¬ 
logical”  rather  than  the  “material”  element  in  “the  terrors  to  come,” 
“he  has  not  altered  the  general  tenor  of  what  was  in  his  source” 
(p.  1 14).  “  What  concerns  us  is  not  that  Luke  has  changed  so  much, 

but  that  he  has  invented  so  little  ”  (p.  115). 

2  The  passages  are  quoted  above,  p.  290. 

294 


THE  SON  OF  MAN 


by  the  High  Priest),  the  general  tenor  of  the  reply, 
and  the  retort,  “  What  further  need  have  we  of  wit¬ 
nesses  ?  ”  But  if  the  reports  of  the  Trial  go  back' to 
fact  at  all,  these  features  would  be  common  to  all 
accounts,  and  are  quite  insufficient  to  prove  that  Luke 
is  following  Mark.1  We  conclude  that  he  derives 
his  version  of  the  reply  from  another  source,  and  that 
it  is  not  a  deliberate  modification  of  Mark,  made  in 
order  to  tone  down  the  eschatology. 

It  appears,  then,  that  Luke  has  no  particular  bias  Luke  does 
against  eschatology  as  such,  but  simply  follows  his  ^lin" 
sources.  This  conclusion  is  of  the  greatest  importance  ^c^tology 
for  our  whole  investigation.  Both  with  regard  to  sources. 
Christ’s  teaching  on  punishment  and  with  regard  to 
eschatology  we  have  found  a  constant  divergence 
between  Matthew  and  Luke  in  the  passages  common  to 
them.  These  passages  are  naturally  ascribed  to  Q 
and,  without  attributing  verbal  inspiration  to  that 
document,  it  makes  all  the  difference  in  the  view  we 
shall  take  of  Christ’s  own  attitude  which  version  we 
are  to  regard  as  the  more  original.  Seeing,  then, 
that  Luke  retains  the  eschatology  of  Mark  and  of  his 
sources  in  Acts,  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  * /  *  "Ai 
deliberately  cut  it  out  from  Q.  We  follow  him 
rather  than  Matthew  as  giving  us  the  truer  report  of 
Christ’s  teaching  where  the  two  overlap. 

It  may  be  added  that  our  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  a 


i  L.V 


1  It  may  be  noted  that  the  rejection  of  Luke’s  dependence  on 
Mark  at  this  point  eliminates  one  of  the  “agreements  of  Matthew  and 
Luke  against  Mark,”  which  have  been  used  to  suggest  that  they  did 
not  have  Mark  before  them  in  quite  its  present  form.  In  this  case 
Matthew  begins  the  saying  with  “henceforth”  (dir  dpn),  and  Luke 
with  “  from  now  ”  (arb  tou  vvv),  while  Mark  has  neither.  On  the  view 
we  take,  the  partial  agreement  here  of  Matthew  and  Luke  is  a 
coincidence. 


295 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


comparison  of  the  general  treatment  of  Mark  by 
Matthew  and  Luke  respectively.  Luke  sometimes 
omits  altogether  (^.g.the  request  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee, 
Mark  x.  35  ff.),  but,  where  he  retains,  his  alterations  are 
as  a  rule  stylistic  or  explanatory.1  On  the  other  hand, 
Matthew  does  not  shrink  from  substantial  changes,  even 
in  the  sayings  of  Jesus,  when  he  has  a  theological  pur¬ 
pose  to  serve  ;  e.g.  he  alters  the  difficult  “  why  callest 
thou  me  good  ?  ”  of  Mark  x.  18  into  “  why  askest  thou 
me  about  the  good  ?  ”  (Matt.  xix.  17)  ;  Luke  here 
follows  Mark.  Or,  again,  in  xxi.  2,  7  he  substitutes 
the  ass  and  the  colt  for  Mark’s  single  ass  in  order  to 
bring  out  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  of  Zech.  ix.  9. 

(2)  According  to  the  view  of  Canon  Streeter  referred 
to  on  page  228,  the  special  matter  in  Luke,  not  de¬ 
rived  from  Mark  or  Q,  represents,  not  a  later  tradition 
of  Christ’s  teaching,  but  an  early  source.  We  have 
therefore  ground  for  believing  that  it  gives  us  that 
teaching  in  a  relatively  pure  and  uncontaminated  form  ; 
and  here  there  are  practically  no  apocalyptic  elements. 

(3)  The  instinct  of  the  Christian  reader  confirms  the 
conclusion  of  the  critic  The  great  parables  of  Luke, 
which  are  so  free  from  eschatology,  have  been  felt 
instinctively  to  bring  us  straight  to  the  heart  of 
Christ’s  thought  and  outlook  on  life.  It  is  not  un¬ 
scientific  to  believe  that,  when  instinct  and  criticism 
agree,  we  may  trust  their  conclusions  and  use  them 
as  a  touchstone  by  which  to  test  what  is  less  well 
authenticated. 

1  Harnack  ( Sayings  of  Jesus,  p.  115)  comes  to  the  same  conclusion 
with  regard  to  the  general  treatment  of  Q  by  Matthew  and  Luke.  It 
is  to  be  noted  that  he  approaches  the  question  purely  from  the  side 
of  literary  criticism,  without  any  desire  to  eliminate  any  particular 
elements  from  the  teaching  of  Jesus. 

296 


CHAPTER  XXIV 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  IDEAS  OF  APOCALYPTIC  : 

TRUTH  AND  ERROR 

It  may  have  occurred  to  the  reader  that,  after  all, 
the  view  we  have  taken  of  Christ’s  teaching  about  his 
Coming  and  the  Judgment  is  in  some  respects  a  return 
to  that  generally  held  before  the  difficulties  connected 
with  the  eschatological  passages  had  been  forced  to  the 
front.  It  was,  for  example,  commonly  taught  that 
Christ  spoke  principally  of  “  his  Coming  ”  in  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  or  in  the  sending  of  the 
Spirit  at  Pentecost,  or  in  the  victory  of  his  teaching 
in  the  growth  of  the  Church.  But  there  are  two  out¬ 
standing  differences  from  the  older  view,  which  must 
not  be  ignored. 

I.  We  recognize  explicitly  that  there  are  passages 
in  the  Gospels  which  cannot  fairly  be  understood 
otherwise  than  as  predicting  an  early  and  visible 
return  to  judgment,  and  as  implying  the  acceptance  of 
the  apocalyptic  scheme  as  a  whole.  Similar  passages 
are  found  in  various  parts  of  the  New  Testament, 
especially  in  I  and  2  Thessalonians,  I  Corinthians, 
the  early  chapters  of  Acts,  and  Revelation,  and  it  is 
impossible  to  deny  that  the  early  Church  believed  in  a 
literal  and  speedy  Advent.  But  we  argue  that  this 
belief  is  not  derived  from  Christ,  so  escaping  the  grave 

297 


The  New 
Testament 
teaches  an 
immediate 
Coming. 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


If  the 
language 
about  the 
date  must 
be  taken 
symboli¬ 
cally,  why 
not  the  rest 
also  ? 


difficulty  which  is  raised  when  we  suppose  him  to  have 
been  mistaken  both  about  the  date  of  the  End  and  its 
nature.  On  the  other  hand,  we  allow  that  large 
sections  of  the  early  Church,  and  some  of  the  New 
Testament  writers,  did  hold  these  erroneous  views, 
deriving  them  from  the  current  apocalyptic. 

2.  The  older  view  allowed  that  references  to  the 
date  of  the  End — “  this  generation,’7  “  immediately,77 
etc. — must  be  understood  figuratively,  but  it  main¬ 
tained  that  the  mass  of  the  eschatology,  though  it 
had  an  immediate  spiritual  meaning  referring  to  the 
death  of  the  individual,  yet  had  ultimately  a  literal 
meaning ;  all  the  language  about  nearness  referred 
to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  or  else  was  symbolic,  while  the 
rest  of  the  language  referred  to  a  literal,  but  indefin¬ 
itely  distant,  Advent,  a  theory  which  is  patently  untrue 
to  the  text  of  the  Gospels.  This  inconsistency  of 
interpretation  arises  from  a  natural  desire  to  preserve 
as  much  as  possible  of  the  literal  accuracy  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  it  has  maintained  itself  so  long  only 
because  it  is  in  a  sense  impossible  to  prove  that  it  is 
wrong.  It  is  always  open  to  us  to  maintain  that 
some  particular  event  is  going  to  happen  to-morrow, 
and  the  prediction  cannot  be  proved  to  be  false  till 
to-morrow  comes.  But  when  many  “  to-morrows 77 
have  come,  and  a  series  of  predictions  with  regard  to 
“  to-morrow,77  such  as  we  find  in  the  expectation 
of  the  Second  Coming,  have  not  been  realized,  we 
have  at  least  very  strong  grounds  for  arguing  that  the 
predictions  themselves  are  mistaken,  and  not  merely 
the  date,  the  more  so  if  they  contradict  our  view  of 
the  way  in  which  God  works  in  His  universe.  The 
predictions  of  the  Judgment  have  been  proved  to 

298 


FUNDAMENTAL  IDEAS  OF  APOCALYPTIC 


be  wrong  at  the  only  point  at  which  they  can  be 
tested — their  nearness.  It  is  now  generally  allowed 
that  we  can  no  longer  uphold  the  accuracy  of  the 
language  about  immediacy  in  a  literal  sense,  and  must 
fall  back  on  the  spiritual  truth  which  lies  behind  it. 

Why,  then,  should  we  not  franldy  do  the  like  with 
the  rest  of  the  language  about  the  fact  itself  and 
its  accompaniments  ?  We  are  the  more  encouraged 
to  do  so  when  we  find  that  this  language,  as  we  have 
tried  to  show,  does  not  go  back  to  Jesus  himself. 

In  this  connection  it  is  very  relevant  to  remember 
that  the  nearness  of  the  End,  which  has  of  necessity 
been  abandoned,  is  not  an  excrescence  which  can 
easily  be  cut  out  of  the  scheme,  but  is  an  integral 
element  in  it,  the  dropping  of  which  throws  the  whole 
out  of  gear.  The  Church  has  been  slow  to  realize 
this.  It  took  over  a  scheme  which  belongs  to  a  pre- 
scientific  view  of  the  universe.  In  parts  this  scheme 
has  obviously  broken  down,  and  these  parts  have  been 
tacitly  scrapped,  but  it  has  tried  to  retain  the  rest, 
and  the  result  is  an  illogical  compromise. 

What,  then,  is  the  background  which  lies  behind  the  The 
pictures  of  the  future  found  in  apocalyptic  and  the  vFew^of  the 
New  Testament  ?  They  presuppose  a  universe  which  universe, 
is  quite  manageable  both  in  its  extent  and  duration. 

The  earth  is  the  centre  of  the  visible  world,  with 
heaven,  or  a  series  of  heavens,  above  it,  peopled  by 
spiritual  beings  who  pass  up  and  down  in  a  quite 
literal  sense.  This  universe  had  its  origin  in  a  definite 
act  of  creation  at  a  point  of  time  not  very  far  distant. 

This  act  may  have  been  split  up  into  stages,  as  in 
Gen.  i.,  but  it  was  not  thought  of  as  a  process  of  gradual 
evolution.  The  point  is  that  the  End  was  con- 

299 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


The  inter¬ 
val  between 
death  and 
the  Judg¬ 
ment. 


ceived  of  on  the  same  principles  as  the  beginning.  It 
was  regarded  as  near,  very  near.  History  could  be 
split  up  into  a  week  of  days,  each  of  1000  years,  and  the 
last  of  these  days  was  drawing  to  its  close,  ushering  in 
the  final  Sabbath.  And  the  End  would  come,  as 
the  beginning  came,  by  a  single  catastrophic  act  of 
God  at  a  definite  point  of  time.  The  whole  attention 
was  concentrated  on  the  approaching  Judgment,  and 
the  manifestation  of  what  is  known  as  the  Messianic 
Kingdom.  And  it  was  thought  of  primarily  in  its 
effect  on  the  nation  as  a  unit,  and  on  the  generation 
alive  at  its  coming.  Generally  speaking,  past  genera¬ 
tions  were  strangely  ignored.  It  follows  that  com¬ 
paratively  little  interest  was  taken  in  the  condition 
of  the  departed  after  death,  in  what  we  have  come 
to  call  the  intermediate  state.  There  was  indeed  such 
a  state,  and  it  was  depicted  in  various  ways ;  but  it 
had  no  real  significance,  being  entirely  subordinate 
to  the  privileges  of  the  Kingdom  which  was  so  soon 
to  be  revealed.  In  the  Apocalypse  of  Ezra ,  xiii.  24, 
it  is  held  that,  in  spite  of  the  horrors  of  the  Messianic 
woes,  which  were  to  usher  in  the  Kingdom,  those 
who  survive  till  its  coming  are  more  blessed  than  those 
who  have  died 

The  same  background  is  presupposed  in  much  of 
the  New  Testament.  In  the  Pauline  Epistles  we  hear 
practically  nothing  of  previous  generations  who  have 
passed  away.  The  problem  which  exercised  men’s 
minds  related  to  the  small  number  of  Christians  who 
might  die  before  the  Second  Coming.  We  see  this 
clearly  in  1  Thess.  iv.  13  ff.  The  survivors  are  not 
to  sorrow  as  men  without  hope  for  those  who  die  ; 
they  will  not  forfeit  their  share  in  the  Kingdom  on 

3  00 


FUNDAMENTAL  IDEAS  OF  APOCALYPTIC 


account  of  their  premature  death.  They  are  now 
asleep,  but  soon  the  Lord  will  appear  and  bring  them 
with  him  ;  their  bodies  shall  rise  (apparently  to  be 
united  with  the  descending  souls),  and  they  and  the 
survivors  will  be  for  ever  with  him  in  the  new  age. 

Nothing  is  said  about  sinners  or  unbelievers.  It  is 
surely  obvious  that  this  passage  implies  a  Messianic 
Kingdom  upon  earth.  For  if  the  Thessalonians 
interpreted  the  future  in  terms  of  a  bliss  in  heaven 
in  our  sense,  into  which  men  normally  passed  at  death, 
why  should  they  have  been  troubled  about  believers 
who  died,  in  the  fear  that  they  should  miss  something 
that  the  survivors  would  enjoy  ?  That  is  to  say,  the 
passage  is  not  primarily  a  discussion  about  what  we 
call  “  the  future  life  ”  in  the  sense  of  the  state  into 
which  we  enter  after  death.  The  great  thing  is  what 
will  happen  at  the  End. 

We  may  notice  that  we  have  here  the  chief  explana-  The  origin 
tion  of  the  origin  of  the  belief  in  a  bodily  resurrection.  ^  ^  belief 
As  we  have  seen,  curiously  little  interest  was  taken  resurrection 
in  past  generations,  but  they  could  not  be  entirely0  t  ebody* 
ignored.  And  so  the  belief  arose  (first  in  Daniel) 
that  the  righteous  should  rise  to  receive  their  bodies, 
or  new  bodies,  in  order  to  enjoy  the  Messianic  King¬ 
dom,  whether  on  earth  or  in  heaven,  and  the  wicked 
in  order  to  receive  the  punishment  they  had  escaped 
here.  Meanwhile,  it  was  held  that  they  were  waiting, 
asleep  or  disembodied,  living  a  kind  of  half-life  until 
they  received  their  garments  of  light,  their  spiritual 
bodies.  In  Revelation  the  righteous  are  the  souls 
beneath  the  altar,  crying  “  How  long  ?  ”  But  as  a 
whole  the  state  of  the  dead  is  not  a  pressing  problem 
to  the  apocalyptic  and  New  Testament  writers, 

301 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Adjustment 
of  the 
scheme  in 
Christian 
theology. 


simply  because  it  is  temporary  and  affects  only  a 
minority  of  believers.  It  was  not  an  important  part 
of  the  sequence  of  events. 

It  would,  of  course,  be  misleading  to  suggest  that 
the  scheme  we  have  sketched  was  clear-cut  and  uniform. 
There  are  many  modifications  and  variations,  both  in 
the  apocalyptic  books  and  in  the  New  Testament. 
In  particular,  we  find  a  modification  which  affects  this 
very  point  of  the  interval  between  death  and  the  End. 
For,  as  time  went  on,  St  Paul  seems  to  have  shrunk 
from  the  idea  of  a  period  of  waiting  after  death, 
during  which  the  soul  should  be  “  naked,”  and  came 
to  teach  that  the  tabernacle  or  garment  from  heaven, 
the  spiritual  body,  was  to  be  received  immediately 
after  death.  Whilst  in  I  Thessalonians  the  dead  may 
hope  to  be  “  with  the  Lord  ”  after  his  coming,  in 
2  Corinthians  and  Philippians  to  die  is  to  be  with 
him  at  once.  But  in  spite  of  modifications,  the  kind 
of  programme  which  lies  behind  the  detailed  escha¬ 
tological  pictures  of  the  New  Testament  remained 
unchanged. 

The  Christian  Church  took  over  the  scheme,  but  it 
found  it  very  difficult  to  manipulate.  For  its  pivot 
was,  as  we  have  seen,  the  near  approach  of  the  Judg¬ 
ment  ;  when  this  did  not  come  at  once,  it  was  of 
necessity  thrust  further  and  further  away  into  the 
future.  The  belief  in  a  kingdom  on  earth  disappeared, 
and  the  Kingdom  itself  became  identified  with  the 
heavenly  state  to  be  attained  after  death.  Generation 
after  generation  of  believers  passed  away  ;  the  period 
of  waiting  became  longer  and  longer,  and  the  actual 
fate  and  condition  of  the  dead  became  of  increasing 
importance.  The  intermediate  state  no  longer  affected 

3°2 


FUNDAMENTAL  IDEAS  OF  APOCALYPTIC 


only  a  few  for  a  short  time.  But  an  indefinitely  pro¬ 
longed  term  of  waiting  for  a  judgment  and  a  final 
entry  into  bliss  or  woe  raised  new  problems  and  really 
dislocated  the  scheme  with  regard  both  to  Judgment 
and  the  Resurrection. 

(a)  A  belief  grew  up  in  an  individual  judgment  at  individual 

death,  at  which  each  one’s  destiny  was  decided,  the  £enefal 
7  <  J  '  Judgment. 

sentence  being,  partially  at  least,  carried  into  execution 
at  once.  But  this  made  the  final  general  Judgment 
otiose  ;  though  it  was  retained,  it  became  only  the 
statutory  and  public  endorsement  of  a  sentence  pro¬ 
nounced  and  acted  upon  long  ago. 

(b)  The  postponement  of  the  Resurrection  also  Do  we  have 
created  a  difficulty.  Whatever  our  conception  of  the 
meaning  of  the  “  spiritual  body”  and  its  relation  to  “spiritual 
the  body  which  has  decayed  in  the  grave,  we  agree  b°dy 
that  it  stands  for  the  fulness  of  personality.  It  becomes 
difficult  to  conceive  of  those  who  have  died  in  the 

Lord  as  living  through  ever-lengthening  ages  a  “  half- 
life,”  naked  and  still  waiting  for  the  tabernacle  from 
heaven.  Yet,  in  spite  of  2  Cor.  v.,  this  has  been  the 
traditional,  and  probably  the  strictly  orthodox,  view. 


“  On  the  Resurrection  morning 
Soul  and  body  meet  again.  .  . 

“  Here  awhile  they  must  be  parted 
And  the  flesh  its  Sabbath  keep, 

Waiting  in  a  holy  stillness 
Wrapt  in  sleep.” 

In  the  Anglican  Burial  Service  we  are  bidden  to  find 
our  hope  and  comfort  in  a  “  general  Resurrection  at 
the  last  day,”  but  it  is  not  this  which  really  comes  home 
to  the  mourner  so  much  as  the  truth  that  “  the  spirits 

303 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Eternal 

Life. 


of  them  that  depart  hence  in  the  Lord  ”  live  now 
with  God,  and  that  “  the  souls  of  the  faithful  ”  are 
already  “  in  joy  and  felicity.”  This  implies  that  they 
are  already  living  a  fuller  and  richer  life  than  here, 
not  a  truncated  half-life.  The  two  views  are  incon¬ 
sistently  retained  side  by  side,  but  if,  apart  from  any 
dogmatic  belief  which  we  feel  compelled  to  hold,  we 
ask  ourselves  what  has  always  been  the  most  vital 
conviction  of  the  Christian  consciousness,  is  it  not 
that  those  we  have  loved  now  live  unto  God,  growing 
to  perfection  in  the  ampler  day  ? 

This  is,  in  fact,  the  fundamental  teaching  of  the 
New  Testament  and  especially  of  Christ  himself,  a 
teaching  which  goes  far  deeper  than  anything  which 
stands  in  apocalyptic.  We  find  it  in  St  Paul’s  later  view 
of  death  as  a  departing  to  be  with  Christ ;  we  find  it 
in  the  Johannine  teaching  of  eternal  life  as  knowing 
God,  a  present  relation  begun  now  and  capable  of 
indefinite  perfection  hereafter  ;  we  find  it  above  all, 
as  we  should  expect,  in  the  outlook  of  Jesus.  When 
asked  about  the  Resurrection  he  does  not  base  his 
argument  upon  some  future  assize  and  an  ultimate 
coming  together  of  soul  and  body,  but  on  the  pro¬ 
found  truth  that  God  is  the  God  of  Abraham,  of 
Isaac  and  of  Jacob.  This  is  not  a  verbal  quibble  from 
Exodus ;  the  meaning  is  that  the  relationship  implied 
when  we  can  say  of  the  Eternal,  “  He  is  my  God,”  is 
in  its  nature  independent  of  death  ;  “  all  live  unto 
Him,”  now  and  always. 

And  so  the  phrases  which  haunt  us,  and  which 
express  our  deepest  longings,  are  such  as  these : 

“  The  souls  of  the  righteous  are  in  the  hand  of  God,  and 
there  shall  no  torment  touch  them.” 

304 


FUNDAMENTAL  IDEAS  OF  APOCALYPTIC 


“  In  my  Father’s  house  are  many  mansions ;  I  go  to  prepare 
a  place  for  you.” 

“  Therefore  are  they  before  the  throne  of  God,  and  serve 
Him  day  and  night  in  His  temple.” 

“  They  shall  hunger  no  more,  neither  thirst  any  more, 
neither  shall  the  sun  light  on  them  nor  any  heat ;  for  the 
Lamb  which  is  in  the  midst  of  the  throne  shall  feed  them  and 
lead  them  unto  living  fountains  of  water,  and  God  shall  wipe 
away  all  tears  from  their  eyes.” 

These  are  independent  of  any  apocalyptic  scheme  ; 
their  keynote  is  not  the  hope  of  some  distant  Resurrec¬ 
tion  and  Judgment  day,  receding  ever  further  into 
an  unknown  future,  but  the  conviction  of  a  relation¬ 
ship  begun  here  and  growing  to  fuller  completeness 
as  we  pass  through  the  doors  of  death. 

For  this  new  life  is  not  static  ;  it  must  be  one  of  Purgatory 
progress.  Purgatory  rightly  interpreted  is  almost  a  ^1e^udg” 
necessity  of  thought.  The  mediaeval  purgatory  was 
mainly  a  state  of  expiation  of  the  punishment  of  sins 
already  forgiven,  and  the  teaching  of  Christ  nowhere 
endorses  the  idea  of  a  ledger  account,  with  a  fixed 
quantity  of  penal  suffering  to  be  shortened  by  various 
devices.  But  we  shall  hardly  doubt  that  even  the 
soul,  which  has  made  much  progress  here,  must  pass 
through  an  experience  of  further  growth  and  purifica¬ 
tion,  which  may  involve  some  pain,  even  though  it 
be  a  “  sweet  pain.” 

Here  it  may  be  thought  we  shall  find  room  after  all 
for  our  apocalyptic  “  Last  Day.”  For  it  may  be  argued 
that  to  us  the  “  Last  Day  ”  marks  the  end  of  the  process 
of  discipline  and  development,  when  the  soul  passes 
from  its  purgatory  or  paradise  to  its  heaven.  But  again 
there  is  an  obvious  difficulty.  A  universal  “  Last 

3°S  v 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Day  ”  in  this  sense  would  imply  that  all  reach  their 
perfection  at  the  same  time.  Is  the  prehistoric 
man,  the  ancient  Egyptian,  the  Christian  believer  of  the 
first  or  the  nineteenth  century — are  those  who  die 
but  a  few  hours  before  the  End,  all  to  attain  their 
final  climax  of  growth  at  the  same  moment  ?  And  if 
it  be  objected  that  this  is  to  apply  our  ideas  of  time  to 
a  state  often  presumed  to  be  timeless,  we  must  reply 
that  if  we  are  talking  about  growth  and  change, 
followed  by  a  Great  Day  at  a  particular  moment  which 
can  be  dated  a.d.  so  and  so,  we  are  still  thinking  in 
terms  of  time  and  cannot  escape  from  a  real  difficulty 
by  suggesting  that  we  are  not.  Heaven,  as  distinct 
from  a  paradise  of  growth,  may  be  regarded  as  the 
final  goal  of  perfection  and  nearness  to  God,  beyond 
which  further  progress  is  impossible,  the  vanishing 
point  of  an  infinite  series,  though  such  a  conception  has 
its  difficulties.  But  it  cannot  reasonably  be  supposed 
that  this  heaven  is  reached  by  all  at  the  same  moment, 
its  attainment  being  preceded  by  a  simultaneous 
Resurrection  and  Judgment. 

It  is  obvious  that  in  speaking  of  the  final  goal  of 
progress  we  pass  to  regions  where  thought  must 
confess  itself  baffled.  But  it  is  not  our  purpose  to 
produce  an  alternative  scheme  of  the  future,  so  much  as 
to  suggest  that  we  need  not  allow  ourselves  to  be 
hampered  and  confused  by  the  particular  apoca¬ 
lyptic  scheme  which  Christianity  inherited  from 
Judaism  (perhaps  ultimately  from  Persia),  and  which 
later  thought  has  vainly  tried  to  adapt  to  a  changed 
conception  of  the  world.  This  scheme  is  a  unity  and 
must  be  taken  or  left  in  its  completeness.  We  cannot 
tacitly  ignore  the  idea  of  the  nearness  of  the  End,  the 

3°6 


FUNDAMENTAL  IDEAS  OF  APOCALYPTIC 


trump  of  doom,  the  physical  resurrection  to  a  renovated 
earth,  and  attempt  to  combine  the  residue  as  literal 
and  prosaic  fact  with  a  quite  different  view  of  the 
future  and  of  life  after  death. 

But,  though  we  have  passed  beyond  the  scheme  itself  The  truths 

and  many  of  the  ethical  ideas  embodied  in  it,  we  underlie  the 
must  not  forget  that,  in  any  great  conception  which  apocalyptic 
has  dominated  religious  thought,  there  is  always  some 
truth  of  which  men  have  been  dimly  aware  and  which 
they  have  attempted  to  express  according  to  their 
light.  If  our  view  is  justified,  Jesus  clearly  rejected 
the  element  in  the  Last  Judgment  which  implies 
a  great  act  of  vengeance  on  a  large  proportion  of 
God’s  children,  but  there  are  other  ideas  behind  the 
apocalyptic  conceptions  which  are  of  permanent 
value.  It  is  indeed  the  subconscious  sense  of  the 
underlying  values  which  has  been  a  main  cause  of  the 
illogical  compromise  by  which,  as  we  have  seen,  they 
have  been  retained  so  long  in  their  literal  form.  If 
we  abandon  the  form,  we  must  not  lose  bold  on  the 
truths  they  attempted  to  express. 

I.  The  idea  of  “  Judgment  ”  embodies  the  idea  of  the  Judgment 

•  *11  c  t  •  /•  and  con* 

mevitableness  ot  consequence.  It  is  oiten  said  that  sequence, 
the  war  has  vindicated  the  apocalyptic  element  in 
Christianity,  but  there  is  always  a  good  deal  of  con¬ 
fused  thinking  in  this  statement.  The  war  was  not  a 
catastrophic  judgment  in  the  sense  of  the  first-century 
apocalyptists.  It  was  not  a  special  and  direct  divine 
intervention  in  history,  still  less  its  final  consummation. 

It  was  something  which  happened  within  the  evolu¬ 
tionary  process,  the  result,  in  a  sense  the  inevitable 
result,  of  what  had  gone  before.  No  doubt  it  serves 
as  a  needed  warning  against  the  shallow  idea  that 

307 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


evolution  is  a  smooth  story  of  unbroken  progress, 
but  it  is  not  what  the  apocalyptists  meant  by  the 
Last  judgment.  It  was  the  sudden  flaring  up  of  the 
volcano,  due  to  the  bursting  out  of  forces  long  at 
work  beneath  the  surface.  There  are  such  crises  in 
human  history,  as  there  are  in  the  physical  and  moral 
history  of  the  individual,  when  evil  and  materialism, 
selfishness  and  pride,  come  to  a  head.  In  that  sense 
these  crises  are  the  sort  of  doom  the  prophets  spoke 
of  as  “  the  day  of  the  Lord,”  a  day  constantly 
recurring  in  different  forms.  In  that  sense  we  may 
say  that  the  apocalyptic  expectation  was  “  fulfilled 99 
in  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  or  of  the  Roman  Empire,  so 
long  as  we  recognize  quite  clearly  that  this  is  not 
the  original  meaning  of  the  idea.  On  the  other 
hand,  such  a  transmutation  of  the  idea  of  judgment 
from  a  single  event  to  a  long  drawn-out  series  does 
preserve  its  fundamental  value — the  inevitable  issue  of 
sin  and  folly,  working  itself  out  by  those  social  and 
psychological  laws  which  are  the  expression  of  the 
divine  will. 

Process  or  §°  regarded,  judgment  becomes  a  process,  as  the 

single  act  ?  Fourth  Gospel  teaches  us.  In  the  same  way,  the  com¬ 
ing  of  Christ  is  a  process,  the  gradual  appropriation  of 
his  vision  of  God,  of  the  gift  of  his  Spirit  and  of  eternal 
life,  both  by  the  individual  and  by  the  society  which 
is  his  Body.  The  coming  of  the  Kingdom  is  equally 
a  process,  slow  and  difficult,  as  Christ  himself  taught, 
for  all  its  joy  and  attractiveness.  In  that  sense  the 
Kingdom  is  embodied  in  the  Church  with  all  its 
failures,  and  more  widely  in  all  the  varied  operations 
of  the  Spirit  upon  the  life  and  heart  of  man  which 
make  for  the  realization  of  the  eternal  values  of  truth, 

3°8 


FUNDAMENTAL  IDEAS  OF  APOCALYPTIC 

beauty  and  righteousness.1  For  this,  as  we  have  seen, 
is  the  Kingdom  in  the  mind  of  Christ — the  glad  doing 
of  the  will  of  God  in  every  sphere  of  life  ;  His  Kingdom 
comes  as  His  will  is  done.  It  may  help  us  to  note  the 
parallel  in  this  respect  between  the  changed  concep¬ 
tions  of  the  last  things  and  of  the  first.  We  now 

think  of  creation  not  as  a  series  of  isolated  acts  at  a 

comparatively  recent  period  but  as  an  unceasing 
process,  the  origin  of  which  goes  back  for  uncounted 
millenniums  and  which  is  still  going  on  under  the 

operation  of  the  Creative  Spirit.  So  it  is  with  the 

coming  of  the  Kingdom.  Just  because  this  is  so 
tremendous,  so  comprehensive,  so  spiritual,  it  cannot 
be  the  result  of  any  single  act  or  event  external  to  the 
hearts  of  men. 

2.  The  apocalyptic  scheme  expresses  the  conviction,  The  final 
ethical  and  religious,  that  right  is  right  eternally  and  go<xpPh  ° 
wrong  is  wrong,  that  the  universe  is  such  that  they 
will  be  seen  to  be  so,  and  that  they  have  consequences 
for  the  individual,  consequences  which  will  be  realized 
after  death  even  if  they  are  not  clearly  visible  here. 

The  Last  Judgment  and  the  belief  in  sharply  contrasted 
rewards  and  punishments  hereafter  are  simply  the 
dramatic  projection  of  these  beliefs  in  terms  of  apoca¬ 
lyptic.  But  tire  projection  has  omitted  the  funda¬ 
mental  element,  the  love  of  God  and  the  supremacy  of 
the  methods  of  love.  Somehow  we  have  to  combine 
the  two  things,  the  eternal  difference  between  right 
and  wrong  with  their  abiding  consequences,  and  the 
belief  that  God  will  really  behave  as  a  Father  to  all 

1  The  establishment  of  the  League  of  Nations  as  an  effective  force, 
changing  the  whole  principle  on  which  international  affairs  have  been 
conducted,  would  be  a  true  “coming  of  the  Kingdom  in  power,"  a 
manifestation  of  “the  Son  of  man  seated  at  the  right  hand  of  God." 

309 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


men  always.  The  combination  must  come  on  the 
lines  of  the  recognition  that  love  is  in  the  long  run 
strong  enough  to  conquer  sin  by  changing  the  heart 
of  the  sinner  in  such  a  way  that  he  ceases  to  be  identi¬ 
fied  with  his  sin.  In  this  sense  we  may  give  a  deep 
meaning  to  the  words  “  we  believe  that  thou  shalt 
come  to  be  our  Judge.”  The  Judge  is  Jesus  because 
loving-kindness,  not  what  men  have  miscalled  “  justice,” 
has  the  last  word ;  because,  as  Son  of  man,  he  does  not 
stand  outside  human  life ;  because  his  teaching  about 
the  character  of  God,  and  his  power,  when  lifted  up, 
to  draw  all  men  unto  him,  will  be  seen  to  hold  good 
to  the  end. 

It  is,  indeed,  sometimes  said  that  the  value  of  the 
belief  in  a  literal  judgment  is  its  guarantee  of  this 
ultimate  triumph  of  good ;  without  it  we  could  not  be 
sure  of  the  final  victory.  But  this  is  surely  to  rest  the 
pyramid  on  its  apex.  We  do  not  in  the  last  resort 
believe  that  good  will  conquer  because  we  believe,  on 
some  other  or  stronger  grounds,  in  the  Last  Judgment. 
If  we  do  believe  in  the  Judgment  in  this  sense,  we  do  so 
because  our  sense  of  values,  our  belief  in  God  and  in 
the  purpose  of  the  universe,  make  us  confident  of  the 
triumph  of  right.  The  sense  of  values  comes  first. 
In  the  past  an  actual  assize  has  seemed  a  natural 
corollary  to  this ;  to-day  it  appears  superfluous,  and 
even  inconsistent  with  the  hope  that  in  the  end  God 
shall  be  all  in  all. 

In  conclusion,  we  would  emphasize  the  fact  that  the 
difficulties  which  so  many  feel  on  this  subject  are  at 
bottom  ethical.  The  objection  to  the  apocalyptic 
outlook  does  not  spring  from  a  materialistic  belief  in 
an  automatic  progress,  or  a  dislike  of  supernaturalism 

310 


FUNDAMENTAL  IDEAS  OF  APOCALYPTIC 


or  of  miracle.  It  requires  a  greater  faith  to  believe 
in  the  slow  triumph  of  love  than  in  the  short  cut  of 
a  supernatural  intervention  which  will  destroy  the 
sinner.  This  faith  must  depend  on  the  conception  of 
God  as  Father,  revealed  in  Christ,  and  the  deeper 
insight  into  the  relation  of  the  world  to  God  which  is  i 
based  on  his  teaching. 

We  owe  to  apocalyptic  the  growth  of  the  belief  in 
personal  immortality  ;  it  also  carried  a  stage  further 
the  distinctive  belief  of  the  prophets  in  God’s  vindica¬ 
tion  of  Himself  and  of  the  principle  of  righteousness — 
the  forward  look  which  is  the  special  characteristic  of 
Judaism  and  Christianity  among  the  religions  of  the 
world.  But  these  beliefs  were  associated  with  the  Conversion 
impatient  desire  of  the  unregenerate  man  for  vengeance  the 
on  his  enemies,  and  with  the  superficial  idea  that  sin  only  con- 

«  i  «  ill  •  r  l  t  QllCSt  of  sillt 

could  be  overcome  by  the  destruction  ot  the  sinner.  In 
the  last  resort  this  makes  nonsense  of  the  world-process. 

It  represents  God  as  a  chess-player,  who  can,  when  he 
sees  fit,  sweep  his  opponent’s  men  off  the  board  and 
order  the  opponent  himself  away  to  execution.  As 
the  Cross  shows  us,  the  age-long  conflict  with  evil  is 
not  really  like  that ;  it  is  something  far  more  serious 
both  for  man  and  for  God.  If,  indeed,  it  is  a  question 
merely  of  the  destruction  of  evil  men  and  ugly  things, 
no  doubt  “  a  flash  of  the  will  that  can  ”  may  be  con¬ 
ceived  of  as  sweeping  them  away  into  nothingness  in 
a  moment.  But  if  the  divine  purpose  is  the  creation 
and  development  of  independent  spirits  capable  of  a 
free  fellowship  with  God  and  willingly  co-operating 
with  Him,  this  cannot  be  effected  by  any  instantaneous 
display  of  omnipotent  power  or  external  catastrophe. 

The  regeneration  of  the  individual  heart  and  the  build- 

3” 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


ing  up  of  such  a  society  must  be  the  slow  and  patient 
work  of  ages.  The  sinner  is  only  defeated  by  being 
made  into  a  saint.  The  regeneration  of  the  world, 
the  building  of  the  New  Jerusalem,  whether  on  earth 
or  in  heaven,  must  be  a  process  in  which  Creative 
Love  reaches  its  goal  by  its  own  proper  methods. 
In  Christianity  alone  do  we  find  a  basis  for  the  con¬ 
viction  that  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  world-process. 
Many,  indeed,  among  its  adherents  in  all  ages  have 
lost  their  hold  upon  it ;  it  has  been  maintained  by 
some  who,  though  they  have  drunk  of  the  spirit  of 
Christ,  do  not  call  themselves  by  his  name.  But  it 
is  distinctively  Christian.  It  rests  upon  the  revelation 
of  the  Fatherhood  of  God  made  by  Jesus,  and  on  the 
belief  that  in  his  life  and  teaching,  and  supremely  in 
his  death  on  Calvary,  we  read  the  secret  of  the  divine 
character  and  of  the  manner  in  which  the  Father  deals 
with  His  children.  It  is  not  a  paradox  to  maintain 
that  Jesus  himself,  the  Lord  of  Thought  no  less  than 
the  King  of  Love,  had  also  read  this  secret. 


312 


GENERAL  INDEX 


A 

Abbott,  E.  A.,  The  Message  of  the 
Son  of  Man,  27 6  n. 

Allen,  Archdeacon,  St  Matthew 
( International  Critical  Commen¬ 
tary),  239,  243. 

Angels,  25,  27  ff.,  48  1,  67,  87. 

Anger,  analysis  of,  176  f. 

- and  punishment,  chap.  xix. 

Antinomianism,  218. 

Antiochus  Epiphanes,  14,  17,  20. 

Apocalyptic,  definition  of,  1  f. 

- disappearance  of,  23,  128  f. 

- failure  of,  52,  56  ff.,  146,  188, 

200,  202  f.,  310  f. 

- fundamental  ideas  of,  chap. 

xxiv. 

- intrusion  of,  in  Gospels,  1 13  ff ., 

186  f.,  190,  228,  241,  and  Part 
III.  passim. 

- origin  of,  14,  18,  20  ff. 

Asceticism,  194. 

Atonement,  181,  237  n. 


B 

Bacon,  Dr  B.  W.,  89  n. 

Baptism,  124. 

- see  also  John  the  Baptist. 

Bevan,  Edwyn,  Stoics  and  Sceptics, 
107  f.,  143. 

Browne,  L.  E.,  Early  Judaism,  272. 
Bunyan,  John,  14,  55. 

Burial  service,  Anglican,  303  f. 
Burkitt,  Professor,  Jewish  and 
Christian  Apocalypses,  18,  20, 

143. 

- Luke's  use  of  Mark,  294  n. 

Butler,  Bishop,  Sermons  on  Human 
Nature,  64. 


C 

Caesarea  Philippi,  279. 

Causation,  the  system  of.  See 
Creation,  Evolution,  Law,  Will. 

Charles,  Dr  R.  H.,  279  n. 

-  The  Book  of  Enoch,  96  n. 

Christianity,  its  foundation  prin¬ 
ciple,  5. 

Church  and  the  Kingdom,  308. 

Consequence  and  punishment,  44, 
55,  119  f.,  132,  148  ff.,  chap,  xiii., 
xiv.,  xv.,  210,  215,  chap,  xix., 
293  307. 

Conversion,  62,  79,  142,  146,  206, 
311. 

Creation,  God’s  purpose  in,  76,  79, 
81,  100,  131  f.,  151,  chap,  xiii., 
178,  205,  218,  220,  224,  236, 
249,  293,  298  ff.,  309  f.,  311  f. 

- see  also  Evolution. 

Creeds,  182. 

Criticism,  Higher,  Introduction,  113 
ff.,  190  and  passim. 

- see  also  Gospels,  Jesus,  Luke, 

Matthew. 

Cross,  theology  of  the,  216,  311. 


D 

Dalman,  Words  of  Jesus,  232  n., 
233  n.,  256  n.,  276  n.,  277  n., 
280  n.,  292  n. 

Dante,  14. 

Destructive  agent  of  God,  85,  87  f., 
chap,  ix.,  113,  124,  176,  187,  212, 
223,  245,  283,  291. 

- see  also  Messiah,  Son  of  Man. 

Devil,  the,  157,  166,  173,  244. 

Dies  Irce,  chap.  viii.  and  passim. 

X 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


Dispersion,  the  Jewish,  105,  138, 

221. 

Dodd,  C.  H.,  The  Meaning  of  Paul 
for  To-day,  236  n. 

Dougail,  L.,  article  in  Concerning 
Prayer,  139  n.,  155  n. 

Driver,  Dr,  article  in  Hastings' 
Dictionary,  276  n. 


E 

Ecstasy,  39,  108. 

Edwards,  L.  P.,  The  Transforma¬ 
tion  of  Early  Christianity  from 
an  Eschatological  to  a  Socialized 
Movement,  271  n. 

Election,  43. 

Emmet,  C.  W.,  Fourth  Book  of 
Maccabees,  70. 

-  Immortality  (essay  on  "  The 

Bible  and  Hell’'),  170,  247  ff. 

-  article  on  “  Interimsetliik  ” 

( Expositor ,  viii.  4),  268  n. 

- The  Eschatological  Question  in 

the  Gospels,  268  n. 

Escape  from  doom.  See  Salvation, 
World-abandonment. 

Eschatology,  definition  of,  2,  186. 

- see  also  Apocalyptic. 

Eternal  life,  304  f. 

Evil,  the  problem  of,  28,  38  ff.,  40, 
46,  48,  51  f.,  chap,  vi.,  120,  chap, 
xiii.,  299,  309  f. 

Evolution,  5  f.,  9,  18,  38,  64,  131, 
chap,  xiii.,  178,  204,  218,  219, 
224,  266,  299  ff.,  306  f.  See  also 
Creation,  Law. 


P 

Fall,  the,  59,  67,  158. 

Fantasy,  compensations  of,  14,  15, 
17,  270  ff.  See  also  Psychology. 

- Jewish,  chap,  ii.,  270  ff. 

Fatherhood  of  God,  the,  231  ff., 
312. 

Fear,  41,  86,  184  f.,  210. 

Fireman,  illustration  of,  44  f. 
Forgiveness,  29,  32  ff.,  137,  140  f., 
147  ff.,  chap,  xv.,  214,  242,  chap, 
xx.,  268,  278  ff. 

Francis  of  Assisi,  218. 

Free-will,  44  n.,  79,  chap.  xiii. 

195,  215,  219. 

- see  also  Law. 


6 

Galileo,  55. 

Genius,  3  f.,  6,  16,  116,  124,  146,  222. 

God,  the  idea  of,  5  f.,  23,  39,  45  f., 
50,  89  ff.,  100,  103  f.,  107,  114, 
117,  chap,  xi.,  140,  149  ff.,  156  f., 
170,  176  f.,  180,  182,  184,  190, 
194,  211  f.,  219  ff.,  231  ff.,  274, 
298  ff.,  310. 

- and  inadequate  salvation, 

chap.  vi. 

- as  Judge,  chap.  iii.  and  passim. 

- destructive  agent  of.  See 

Destructive  agent,  etc. 

- His  love  and  cruelty,  chap,  iv., 

105,  156,  195. 

- practice  of  the  presence  of, 

151,  215. 

-  see  also  Immanence,  Trans¬ 
cendence. 

Goodness,  the  attraction  of,  80,  93, 
130,  150,  167,  176,  201,  235,  259. 

- see  also  Innocence. 

Gospels,  the,  and  other  biographies, 
7  ff. 

- devotional  reading  of,  1. 

- growth  of,  227  f. 

- substantial  truth  of,  8,  9  f., 

229. 

- synoptic  portrait  of  Jesus  in, 

chap,  x.,  229. 

- teaching  on  consequence  and 

punishment,  chap.  xiii.  and  xiv. 

- see  also  Jesus,  Luke,  Matthew. 


H 

Harnack,  243. 

- Spruche  und  Reden  Jesu  (The 

Sayings  of  Jesus),  245,  296  n. 

Headlam,  Dr  A.  C.,  The  Doctrine  of 
the  Church  and  Reunion,  255  n. 

Heaven,  32,  305  f. 

Hell,  chap,  iii.,  iv.,  vi.,  vii.,  247  ff. 

- see  also  Sheol. 

Hellenism,  48,  64,  105,  116  f. 

Heretics,  137,  248. 

Higher  Criticism,  Introduction,  20 
ff.,  113  ff.,  190,  and  passim. 

Holy  Spirit,  the,  85  «.,  87,  202  ff., 
215. 

- the  sin  against  the,  243  f. 

Hyde  Park  evangelism,  144. 


I 

Idea  of  God.  See  God. 
- of  Man.  See  Man. 


314 


INDEX 


Ideas,  the  dynamic  of,  5,  55,  170. 

Immanence,  the  divine,  51,  162  ff., 
170,  180,  201,  203  f.,  206,  215, 
219  ff. 

Immortality,  21,  22,  217,  311. 

- see  also  Survival,  Resurrection. 

Immortality  (ed.  by  Canon  Streeter), 
170,  247,  249. 

Incarnation,  the,  3,  182. 

- see  also  Nature,  Human  and 

Divine. 

Infallibility,  4,  9,  18  f.,  38,  180,  207. 

Innocence  and  goodness,  15,  62  n., 
64  f.,  197  f. 

- see  also  Goodness. 

“  Interimsethik,”  266  ff. 

Intermediate  state,  the,  148  n., 
301  ff. 

Intervention,  divine.  See  Omnipo¬ 
tence. 

Intuition,  146,  296. 

- and  criticism,  249  n. 


J 

Jerusalem,  the  fall  of,  56,  119,  121, 
162,  166,  168,  239,  270,  286  ff., 
293  f.,  308. 

Jessica,  145. 

Jesus  and  contemporary  thought, 
35  f.,  55,  61,  140,  183,  190,  200, 
210,  231  ff.,  249. 

- and  the  Son  of  Man.  See  Son 

of  Man. 

- and  the  Suffering  Servant, 

101  f. 

- - and  the  Synoptic  Gospels, 

113,  186  f.,  229  f.  See  also 
Gospels. 

- and  nature,  131  f.,  164,  183, 

209. 

- divinity,  5,  176. 

- genius,  1  ff.,  6  f.,  Part  II. 

especially,  24,  126,  146,  186,  204, 
209,  222. 

- inconsistency  ?,  2,  7  f.,  9,  190, 

235,  249,  253,  269. 

- intellect,  3,  5,  114,  139,  190, 

222. 

- originality,  1,  7,  9,  37,  91  f., 

93,  113  ff.,  126,  144,  175,  184,  198, 
202,  223,  229  ff.,  260,  268,  312. 

- philosophy,  2  ff.,  9,  231,  263. 

- prayers,  94. 

- temptation,  115  f.,  153  «.,  109. 

- use  of  the  Old  Testament,  3  f., 

85  f.,  95. 

- works  of  healing,  94. 


Jewish  fantasy,  chap,  ii.,  270  ff. 

- history,  13,  15,  20,  144. 

- literature,  its  value,  18  n. 

- missionary  ideals,  17,  46,  115, 

135,  140,  146,  153,  257  f,.  273  f. 

- philosophy,  39. 

- religion  and  Roman  Catholic¬ 
ism,  13,  198. 

- theology,  its  superiority,  15, 

25,  40,  44,  47,  79,  91,  134,  211, 

221. 

- see  also  Apocalyptic. 

John  the  Baptist,  63,  chap,  vii.,  93, 
98,  115,  127,  137,  206,  210,  245, 
259  f. 

Josephus,  89  f.,  140. 


K 


Kennedy,  H.  A.  A.,  St  Paul  and  the 
Mystery  Religions,  108  f. 
Kingdom,  the,  chap,  viii.,  117  f., 
140,  203  ff.,  233,  chap,  xxi.,  276  f., 
283  ff.,  292  ff.,  308  ff. 


Ii 


Lake  and  Foakes- Jackson,  The 
Beginnings  of  Christianity ,  231  n.} 
256  n.,  258  n.,  263  n. 

Law,  universal,  16,  21,  23,  24,  44  f., 
54,  109,  118  f.,  151,  chaps,  xiii. 
to  xv.,  205,  236  ff.,  249,  293, 
298  ff.,  308. 

- see  also  Creation,  Evolution, 

Free-will. 

- written,  15,  19  f.  and  passim. 

League  of  Nations,  309  n. 

Legalism  in  morality  and  religion, 
15,  62,  91,  113,  133,  158,  182,  201. 

Life,  definition  of  j)hilosopliy  of, 
2  f. 

- development  of.  See  Evolu¬ 
tion,  Creation. 

Loisy,  290. 

Loom,  illustration  of,  161  f. 

Lord’s  Prayer,  the,  148  f.,  163,  166, 
192,  228,  232  f.,  251  f.  See  also 
Prayer. 

Luke,  use  of  sources  by,  293  ff. 

- see  also  Matthew,  special  char¬ 
acteristics  of. 


315 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


m 

Man,  Jewish  idea  of,  chap.  v. 

- the  idea  of,  6,  23,  49  ft.,  53,  57, 

74,  chap,  xi.,  149,  194,  200,  212, 
219. 

Matthew,  special  characteristics  of, 
238  ff.(  248  252  ff.,  264,  282  £f., 
288,  290  ff. 

Mercy  and  retributive  justice,  152, 
210,  chap.  iii. 

Messiah,  187,  223,  261. 

- see  also  Destructive  Agent  of 

God,  Son  of  Man. 

Messianic  birth-pangs,  96. 

Milton,  John,  14,  55. 

Miraculous,  the,  16  f.,  116,  118,  126, 
160,  192,  271,  311. 

- see  also  Omnipotence. 

Montefiore,  C.,  Contemporary 
Jewish  Religion,  19,  64  f. 

-  The  Synoptic  Gospels,  139  f., 

240  n. 

Moulton,  Grammar  of  New  Testa¬ 
ment  Greek,  246. 

Mystery  Religions,  106  ff.,  114,  144, 
181,  201,  221,  223. 

Mystical  intuition,  146,  296. 

Mythologies,  221.  See  also  Symbol¬ 
ism. 


N 

Nature,  the  relation  between  human 
and  divine,  5,  6,  118  f.,  123, 
133,  191,  194,  216,  219. 

- see  also  Incarnation. 


O 

Oesterley,  Dr,  Wisdom  of  Ren-Sira, 
53,  68. 

Omnipotence,  146,  163,  182,  195, 
219,  235,  257  ff.,  271,  300,  311. 


P 

Pacificism,  148  n. 

Pantheism,  219. 

Parables,  the  need  for,  155  f.,  246. 

■ - their  explanations,  168  n., 

237  ff.,  246  f.,  253. 

- their  teaching  on  natural  con¬ 
sequence,  171  f.,  237  ff. 

Parousia,  the,  242,  chap,  xxiii., 
297  ff.,  308. 


Paul,  St,  7,  47,  62,  129  ff.,  179,  184, 
189,  200,  208,  218,  234,  285,  302. 

Peake’s  Commentary,  3  n.,  19  n., 
46  n.,  64  f. 

Penalties  and  rewards,  15  f.,  23, 
chap,  iii.,  44,  53,  55,  73  ff.,  79, 
119,  130,  132,  147,  chap,  xiii., 
xiv.,  xv.,  210,  216,  220,  309  and 

passim. 

- see  also  Punishment. 

Penn,  William,  55. 

Persecution,  137,  150,  167,  212, 
285 

Personality,  44,  157,  163,  208,  211, 
917  990  ROR 

Philosophy,  2  f.’,  64,  79,  220,  222. 

Phrygian  chiliasm,  270  f. 

Plato,  3,  7. 

Plutarch,  Lives,  8. 

Prayer,  161,  155,  242,  247,  250  f. 

- the  Lord’s.  See  Lord’s  Prayer. 

Private  judgment,  4. 

Proselytes,  144. 

Providence,  161,  181. 

Psychology,  14  f.,  20,  72,  106,  109, 
142,  150,  156,  160,  172,  177,  179, 
192,  195,  205  n.,  207  ff.,  213,  230, 
251,  270  ff.,  294,  307  f. 

- and  popular  fiction,  15,  22. 

Punishment  and  consequence.  See 
Consequence. 

- delight  in,  26,  30,  48. 

- eternal,  psychology  of  be¬ 
lievers  in,  156. 

- teaching  concerning,  chap.  xiv. 

- see  also  chap,  xiii.,  xv.,  xix., 

243  and  passim. 

Purgatory.  See  Intermediate  State. 

Puritanism,  14. 

Pythagoras,  109. 


Q 

Q,  meaning  of,  84  n.,  227. 


R 

Rabbinical  sayings,  255,  257,  292. 
Rationalism,  4  f.,  19  f.,  38  ff.,  178. 
Reconciliation,  196. 

Re-incarnation,  21. 

Remnant,  the  righteous,  103,  106. 
Renunciation.  See  World-abandon¬ 
ment. 

Repentance,  63,  74,  81,  86,  136,  199, 
215,  261  f.  See  also  Forgiveness 


INDEX 


Responsibility,  49  57,  59,  73  f., 

155,  157,  214. 

Resurrection,  21  f.,  35,  87,  102,  108, 
113,  123,  217,  280  ft.,  285  n. 

- of  the  body,  301  ff. 

- see  also  Immortality. 

Revelation,  5,  16,  63,  73,  122,  126, 
180,  211,  215. 

Revenge,  177  f. 


S 

Sabatier,  Paul,  Life  of  St  Francis, 
218  n. 

Sacraments.  See  Mystery  Religions  . 

Salvation,  international  and 
national,  chap,  xii.,  210,  chap, 
xxii. 

- the  problem  of  inadequate, 

chap.  vi. 

- and  sin,  chap.  xvi. 

- see  also  39,  106  ff.,  114,  121, 

164,  201,  213,  223. 

Schoolmaster,  illustrations  of,  45, 
78. 

Schweitzer,  Dr  A.,  268  n.,  281  n., 
284,  285  n. 

Second  Coming,  the.  See  Parousia. 

Servant,  the  Suffering.  See  Jesus. 

Servants,  Jewish  idea  of,  70  ff. 

Sheol,  27,  102. 

- see  also  Hell. 

Sin  and  salvation,  chap.  xvi. 

- punishment  and  consequences 

of,  chap,  xiii.,  xiv. 

- remission  of,  chap.  xv. 

- see  also  119,  192,  242. 

Socrates,  7. 

Son  of  Man,  26,  96  n.,  chap,  ix., 
220,  261  ff.,  273,  chap,  xxiii.,  310. 

- see  Destructive  Agent  of  God. 

Stanton,  Dr,  The  Gospels  as  Histori¬ 
cal  Documents,  240  n.,  285  n., 
291  n. 

Stoicism,  194,  201. 

Streeter,  Canon  B.  H.,  article  in 
Hibbert  Journal,  xx.  No.  1, 
228  n.,  296  n. 

-  The  Four  Gospels,  94  n.,  228  n. 

- Oxford  Studies  in  the  Synoptic 

Problem,  283  n.,  289  n. 


Streeter,  Canon  B.  H.,  The  Spirit 
(article  on  “  Christ  the  Construc¬ 
tive  Revolutionary”),  146  n. 

- see  also  243,  247. 

Sublimation,  106,  109,  177,  213, 
270  ff. 

- see  also  Psychology. 

Survival,  217. 

- see  also  Immortality. 

Symbolism,  21,  22,  87,  96,  105,  107, 
122  f.,  161,  165,  175,  190,  216, 
220,  221,  222,  224,  298. 

Symonds,  Arthur,  209. 

T 

Taboo,  91. 

Tacitus,  8. 

Talbot,  Neville,  The  Mind  of  the 
Disciples,  218  n. 

Temptation,  the,  115  1,  153  n.,  169. 

Tennyson,  Lord,  In  Memoriam,  39. 

Theology,  moral,  161. 

Thomas,  Gospel  of,  231. 

Transcendence,  the  divine,  40,  59,  73, 
88,  100,  163  ff.,  202,  215,  217,  220  ff. 

- see  also  Omnipotence. 

U 

Universe,  morality  of  the.  See 
Creation,  Law. 

V 

Vicarious  suffering,  17,  267,  278. 

Victorian  eschatological  outlook,  98. 

- person,  story  of  a.  14 

Von  Htigel,  Baron,  Essays  in  the 
Philosophy  oj  Religion,  2  n.,  3  n. 


W 

Weiss,  J.,  Die  Predigt  Jesu  vom 
Reiche  Gottes,  267,  268  n. 

Will,  salvation  and  holiness,  202  f. 
Winstanley,  Jesus  and  the  Future,  241. 
Woman,  Jewish  idea  of,  66  ff.,  133  f. 
Wood,  H.  G.,  2. 

World-abandonment,  17,  81,  98,  chap, 
ix.,  144,  210,  229. 


317 


INDEX  OF 

BIBLICAL,  APOCRYPHAL  AND  APOCALYPTIC 

PASSAGES 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


OLD  TESTAMENT 


Genesis,  i.  . 

.  299 

vi.  2-4 

.  67  n. 

Exodus,  xxxiv.  6  f. 

92 

2  Samuel,  vii.  13  . 

.  232 

Ezra,  Book  of 

67 

Esther,  Book  of  . 

.  34  f. 

Job,  Book  of 

17, 

40,  47,  52 

Psalms,  Book  of  . 

129,  272 

- imprecatorv 

34 

Psalm  ii. 

.  261 

viii. 

275,  277,  279 

5 

280  n. 

xviii.  35  . 

134  n. 

xxiii. 

.  212 

3  • 

.  164 

li.  4 

.  193 

10 

.  79  n. 

lxii.  12 

.  283 

lxvii. 

.  258 

lxxxv. 

47 

Ixxxvi.  5,  9 

47 

xciii. 

257  n. 

xcvi. 

.  258 

10  . 

47 

xcvi.-c.  . 

257  n. 

cxiii.  13  . 

.  232 

.  cxix. 

40 

32  . 

.  79  n. 

cxxxvii .  5 

.  143 

cxlv. 

257  n. 

4,  11,  12,  21 

.  258 

Isaiah,  the  Second 

17,  47 

,  146,  272 

Isaiah,  ix.  1  f. 

94 

xi.  . 

.  261 

10 

136  n. 

xiii.  9 

96 

Isaiah — continued, 
xix.  23  ff 
xl.  3 
23  f. 
xlix.  6 
lvii.  7 
lxi.  1  ff. 
lxiii.  9 

Jeremiah,  xxiv.  7' 
xxxi.  33 
xxxii.  40 
Ezekiel,  vii.  1-9 
Daniel,  Book  of,  16,  23,  34,  103,  105, 

185 

iv.  17  .  .  .  143 

vii.  257  n.,  259,  277,  280.  290,  301 
9  ff.  .  .  96,141,276 


136  n. 
85 

.  258 

136  n. 
.  270 

95,  86,  260 
.  176 

.  79  n. 

34 


Vlll. 

xii.  1 
2 

Joel,  Book  of 
ii.  30  f. 
Amos,  v.  18 


34 
96 
35  n. 
185 
96 
287  n. 


Jonah,  Book  of  17,  46  f.,  146,  177 
Zechariali,  Book  of  .  .185 

viii.  20  ff.  .  .  136  n. 

ix.  9  .  .  .  261,  296 

Malachi,  Book  of,  83,  85,  87  ff.,  128, 

165,  185,  275,  277 
i.  11  .  .  ...  88 


111.  1 

1,  2,  18 
i-3  • 

iv. 

i-3 


85  n. 
84 
88 
34 
84,  88 


APOCRYPHA 


Wisdom  of  Solomon,  20  ff.,  62,  68, 

116  n.,  129,  185 


Wisdom  of  Ben- Sir  a  ( Ecclesiasticus ), 

53,  62,  128,  185 


i.  11 

.  182 

i.  11-13  . 

42 

iff.  1 

.  304 

ii.  7-11 

42 

i-3>  8  . 

.  217 

13-14  . 

33 

1,  9  • 

.  204 

v.  4-8 

53 

iff.  nf.  . 

50 

X.  2  . 

80 

iv.  19  f.  . 

34 

xvi.  11 

33 

vii.  226-27 

41 

xviii.  8-12 

54 

xi.  24-xii.  2 

50 

xxi.  9  f.  . 

33, 

181 

xii.  2 

52 

xxii.  3 

69 

xii.  10-12 

51 

xxiii.  1,  4 

232 

xiv.  3 

.  232 

xxv.  13,  5-20,  24-26  . 

69 

xv.  1-3  . 

41 

xxvi.  6  f.  . 

69 

xxxviii.  . 

103  n. 

13  f- 

• 

68 

320 


INDEX 


Wisdom  oj  Ben-Sira — continued. 


xxxiii.  24-26,  28-31  . 

71 

xxxvi.  21-24 

68 

xxxix.  28-30 

34 

31-34  • 

81 

xl.  1-6 

54 

xli.  if.. 

55 

Wisdom  of  Ben-Sira — continued. 


xlii.  9,  ii,  11-14  .  .  70 

23-25  ...  81 

xliii.  26-28  ...  81 

Maccabees,  Book  III.  .  62,  232 

Book  IV.  .  .  62,  70 


APOCALYPTIC  LITERATURE 


Enoch,  Book  of,  20  ff 26,  48  f.,  62, 
67,  106,  107,  170,  185,  276 

97 
26 

27,  181 
97 
74 
29 
29 

29 
49 

30 

30 
27 

27 

28 
74 

276  n. 
80 
28 
212 

12  .  .  .  101 

104 

31 
49 
42 
80 

203 
102 
92 
181 

Patriarchs, 


i.  3-8 
9  • 

v.  4.  5 

6  . 

ix.  1-11 

x.  4-13 

xii.  3-6 

xiii.  1-6 

xiii. ,  xiv. 

xiv.  4-7 

xxi.  7-10 

xxii.  9 
xxvii.  2  f 
xli.  2  . 
xiii.  2  f. 
xlvi. 
xlix,  1  f. 
liii.  1.  3-5 
lviii.  3-5  • 
lxii.  i-5,  9 


11 


•II 


lxiii.  I,  5-8, 
lxvii.  4-13 
lxviii.  2-4 
lxxi.  5,  8,  9 
I5_I7 
16  . 

cii.  5 
ciii.  5-8 
cviii.  3 
Testaments  oj  the  Twelv 


20  ff.,  32,  67,  128,  170 


Reuben,  v.  1-3  . 

vi.  2-4  . 

Levi,  iii.  1-3 
xv  1-4 

Judah,  xv.  5-6 

Gad,  vi.  3-7 
7 

Asher,  i.  6-8 
ii.  3-5  • 
vi.  4 

Sibylline  Oracles,  Book  III 

46-56 

Moses,  Assumption  of,  x.  7-10 


68 

68 

32 

32 
68 

141  n. 

33 
66 
66 

66  n. 

141 

102 


A  braham,  A  pocalypse  of,  xxi.  67  n. 
Baruch,  Apocalypse  of,  20  ff.,  55  f., 

62,  129,  182,  185 


iii.  4-8 

.  .  56  n. 

v.  1  . 

.  .  56  n. 

xii.  1-4 

.  56  n. 

xiii.  3-8  . 

.  .  56  n. 

xiv.  2-6  . 

.  57  n. 

10-14  . 

78 

xvi.— xviii. 

77 

XXV. 

98 

xlviii.  14-17,  25 

f.,  39  f-  .  57 

xlix.  10  . 

.  204 

1.  . 

.  .  58  n. 

Ii.  1 . 

.  .  58  n. 

Iii.  2  f. 

58 

liv.  21  f.  . 

.  36  f. 

lv.  3-8 

58 

lxxiii.  1  f. 

.  43 

lxxiv.  1  . 

43 

lxxv.  1-5  . 

43 

zra,  Apocalypse 

of,  20  ff.,  58  f.,  62, 
129,  182,  185,  277 

iii.  4-5,  7-10,.  12 

,  17,  19  f.,  22, 

27,  35  f- 

.  59  n. 

iv.  10  ff.,  22  f. 

.  .  .  60  n. 

v.  1,  4,  5  • 

97 

vi.  17-20  . 

97 

vii.  33,  36-38 

.  35  f. 

46-48  . 

.  201 

62-68 

61 

1 19  f.  . 

131  n. 

119-126 

.  184 

viii.  1-3  . 

.  .  .  36  m. 

6  . 

.  202 

7-14  . 

79 

20,  23,  28,  30,  37-39  .  183 

27-34,  41,  44 

75 

35  ff-  • 

.  .  141  n. 

55-59  • 

36 

ix.  9  f-  • 

76 

15  f. 

.  .  .  36  m. 

19-22  . 

75 

29-37  • 

77 

xiii. 

276  m. 

24 

.  300 

321 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


NEW  TESTAMENT 


St  Matthew  . 

.  247 

St  Matthew — continued. 

iii.  1-17 

.  84  w. 

x.  40 

.  206 

2  . 

259  n. 

xi.  11 

.  206 

7  • 

.  245 

13 

91 

7-12 

.  84  n. 

17 

99 

10 

.  244 

18 

93 

1  ff. 

116, 

117,  123  153,  169, 

25 

.  215 

205 

27 

.  121 

10 

• 

.  294 

xii.  31 

.  242 

v.-vii. 

118,  131  ff.,  189,  200,  205, 

33 

.  244 

213,  250,  268  f. 

43 

.  244 

10 

.  144 

40 

273  w. 

21  f. 

198  ft. 

44 

205  ft. 

25  f. 

147  n. 

xiii. . 

.  171 

27  f. 

198  n. 

3  ff- 

.  241 

29 

.  243 

16  f. 

.  205 

35 

.  233 

24  ff. 

134, 

165,  170  w.,  241 

38-48 

142  n. 

36-43 

.  241,  289n. 

43-48 

.  104 

37  ff* 

264  ft. 

44  f- 

149  n. 

4i 

.  291 

45 

.  118  n.,  141 

42 

.  238 

48 

.  209 

50 

.  238 

vi.  9  f. 

148  f.,  163,  166,  192,  232, 

xv.  14 

.  147  «.,  244 

233,  251,  252,  254 

xvi.  4 

273  «. 

14 

.  252 

19 

.  255 

14  fr 

.  199 

23 

.  125 

15 

.  253 

27 

.  291 

16 

.  254 

27  f. 

.  291 

22  f. 

.  .  152  n. 

27  ff. 

.  282  f. 

25-29 

.  164,  169  n. 

28 

264  ft. 

26-30 

204  n. 

xviii.  6 

.  243 

vii.  1-5 

147  ft. 

7  • 

.  168 

2  . 

.  243 

8  . 

.  243 

7  f- 

.  202 

15  ff. 

.  254 

7-1 1  and  parallels  .  117  n. 

18 

.  255 

9  • 

199  n. 

19 

117  w. 

13 

.  244 

21-35 

142  ft. 

16 

.  244 

23  ff. 

.  252  £. 

21 

.  292 

xix.  17 

.  296 

22 

.  291,  292 

28 

.  291 

24 

.  244 

xx.  1-6 

169  ft. 

24-27 

173  n. 

22 

125,  207 

27 

120-133 

xxi.  2,  7 

.  296 

viii.  12 

.  283 

19 

.  246 

ix.  6 

278  n. 

xxii.  1 

.  239 

13 

.  175 

11-14 

172  ft. 

22 

.  164 

13 

.  238 

x.  5. 

.  .  285  n. 

14 

.  239 

3  f* 

285  n. 

xxiii. 

.  245 

15 

.  244 

8  . 

.  233 

17-22 

.  284 

33 

.  245 

23 

.  284,285  n. 

37 

.  246 

28 

.  244 

xxiv. 

.  287 

28-31 

173  w. 

9-13 

.  284 

29  f. 

119,  120,  131  f.,  165 

27 

153,  286 

32 

.  282  f. 

29 

.  294 

322 


INDEX 


St  Matthew — continued 


xxiv.  37-4  T 

.  245 

51 

.  238 

xxv.  1-13 

170  n. 

14-30  . 

172  n. 

30 

238,  240 

31 

277,  291 

31  ff.  . 

.  248 

31-46  . 

170  m. 

41-46  . 

.  248 

xxvi.  13  . 

.  153 

64 

.  290 

xxviii.  19 

285  n. 

Mark,  i.  2-6 

.  85  n. 

14  and  parallels 

89 

15 

62 

17 

93,  205 

24 

.  195 

ii.  9 

.  176 

10 

.  278 

19  and  parallels 

.  94 

20 

.  286 

28 

.  278 

iii.  28  and  parallels  . 

164,  242 

iv.  1 

.  171 

12 

.  246 

26  ff. 

.  205 

30  ff.  and  parallels 

.  205 

v.  7  f. 

.  195 

34  •  • 

.  164 

vii.  n-13 

198  n. 

viii.  31 

278,  281  n. 

33 

.  125 

36  and  parallels 

.  153 

38 

.  293 

38  ff. 

282  f. 

ix.  12 

.  281 

29 

.  215 

31 

281  n. 

37 

206,  249 

42 

.  242 

43 

.  242 

X.  15 

.  206 

18  .  .  135,  200,  296 

29  and  parallels 

.  210 

32 

281  n. 

35  ff*  • 

.  296 

38  • 

.  207 

39  •  • 

.  125 

42-45  . 

.  104 

52 

.  164 

xi.  13 

.  246 

1 5  and  parallels 

.  122 

17 

270  n. 

20 

.  246 

21 

.  247 

25 

.  252 

25  f.  . 

.  254 

xii.  26  and  parallels  . 

.  304 

St  Mark — continued. 


xii.  27  and  parallels  .  .  217 

xiii. 

.  245,  287  ff. 

11-13  . 

.  284 

24 

.  294 

24-27  . 

.  293 

29 

.  264  n. 

30  f.  . 

.  294 

3-2 

.  294 

xiv.  9 

.  153 

21 

.  243 

25  and  parallels  .  264  n. 

62 

.  233  n.,  290 

Luke,  iii.  3-22 

,  82,  84  n. 

7  ff. 

84,  88 

11,  14  . 

115  n. 

11-14  . 

128  n. 

16  f. 

84 

iv.  1  ff.  115, 

117, 123  n.,  153  «., 

169,  205 

18 

.  260 

18  f. 

94 

v.  39 

120,  168 

vi.  27-38  . 

142  n. 

27-42  . 

.  214 

35 

118  m.,  233  m. 

35  f-  • 

.  149  n. 

36  £. 

179  m. 

39 

.  215 

43 

.  244 

46 

.  292 

49 

120-133 

vii.  26-28 

84 

27 

.  .  85  m. 

32  f.  . 

99 

33 

93 

47-49  * 

173  m. 

50 

.  164 

viii.  5-8  . 

.  168  m. 

11 

.  171 

48 

.  164 

ix.  22-27  . 

.  183 

26 

.  293 

26  ff. 

.  282  f. 

27 

.  293 

47-48  . 

183,  206 

55  R.V.m. 

.  207 

x.  1  f.  . 

.  169  m. 

12 

.  244 

21 

.  215 

23  f.  . 

.  205 

xi.  2  f.,  148  f.,  163, 166, 192, 232  f.. 

251  f.,  254 

5  ff*  * 

.  242 

13  .  118  m.,  203,  209,  215 

18 

.  .  205  m. 

20 

.  164 

24 

.  244 

29 

.  273  7i. 

323 


THE  LORD  OF  THOUGHT 


St  Luke — continued. 


St  Luke — continued. 


xi.  29-32  and  parallels 

177  n. 

xxi.  25-28 

.  .  294 

34 

• 

152  n. 

3i 

.  264  n. 

42 

• 

.  245 

31-33  • 

.  294 

5° 

• 

.  168 

xxii  26  f. 

117  n. 

xii.  . 

• 

119  f. 

131,  165 

28-30  . 

.  291 

4-9 

• 

173  n. 

29 

.  264  n. 

5  • 

• 

.  244 

53 

287  n. 

8  f. 

• 

282  f. 

66 

.  294 

10 

• 

.  242 

69 

.  290 . 

M 

• 

.  123 

xxiii.  34  . 

.  251 

22  ff. 

• 

.  164 

St  John,  iii.  16 

.  183 

32 

• 

.  165 

xiv.  2 

.  305 

37 

• 

117  n. 

9  . 

.  175 

49 

• 

.  153 

xvii.  11 

233  n. 

54-56 

• 

168  n. 

Acts,  i.-xii.  . 

.  297 

58  f. 

• 

147  n. 

i.  11 

.  293 

xiii.  1  ff. 

• 

.  167,  173  n. 

ii.  17  ff.  . 

.  280 

3  • 

• 

139,  192 

iii.  19  ff.  . 

.  280 

6  . 

• 

.  247 

vii  56 

.  281 

25  ff. 

• 

.  291 

xvii.  31 

.  2S3 

28 

• 

.  239 

xxiv.  25  . 

.  293 

34 

• 

.  246 

Romans ,  i.  18 

.  236 

xiv.  7-11 

• 

172  n. 

ii.  14  f. 

.  .  62  n. 

15 

• 

.  239 

vii.  . 

.  131 

26  f. 

• 

.  210 

vii.  10-24 

.  184 

xv.  4-7 

• 

.  105 

vii.  15-viii.  1  . 

.  180 

8  ff. 

• 

.  250 

viii.  1 

.  189 

11  ff. 

• 

.  250 

viii.  38  f.  . 

.  156 

xvi.  16 

• 

91 

1  Corinthians 

.  297 

xvii. 

• 

.  264 

2  Corinthians,  v.  . 

.  303 

1  . 

• 

168,  243 

5-8 

.  302 

3 

• 

.  253 

Ephesians,  iii.  15 

235  n. 

10 

• 

.  200 

Philippians,  i.  23 

.  302 

20 

• 

.  264 

iv.  13 

.  209 

20  ff. 

• 

287  ff. 

1  Thessalonians  . 

.  297 

22-37 

• 

.  286 

iv.  13  ff.  . 

300,  302 

25 

• 

281  n. 

2  Thessalonians  . 

247,  297 

25  ff. 

• 

.  286 

i.  4  ff. 

.  242 

26-37 

• 

.  245 

ii.  11  f. 

237  n. 

xviii.  1 

• 

.  203 

Hebrews,  ii.  14 

.  244  n. 

1-8 

• 

.  242 

James,  i.  17 

211  n. 

9  • 

• 

.  251 

ii.  10 

.  .  65  n. 

9  ff. 

• 

.  250 

2  Peter 

.  247 

xix.  10 

• 

.  104 

1  John,  i.  9  . 

.  180  n. 

11  ff. 

• 

.  240 

Jude  . 

.  247 

14 

• 

.  240 

Revelation  . 

247,  297 

27 

• 

.  240 

vi.  9 

242,  301 

4i 

• 

.  246 

16 

.  236 

xxi.. 

• 

287  ff. 

vii.  15  f.  . 

.  305 

12-19 

• 

.  284 

xviii.  20  . 

.  .  36  n. 

25 

• 

.  294 

xix.  1-3  .  . 

.  .  36  n. 

324 


